Law  o 


Hyman 


iipi   I  P 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE  LAW  OF 
STRUGGLE 

By 

HYMAN    SEGAL 

Author  qf 

'"The  Book  of  Pain-Struggle' ' 

etc. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

MASSADA   PUBLISHING  COMPANY 
NEW  YORK 


Copyright,  1918 
New  York 


"T^-K 


i 


S4-5X 


CONTENTS 

Chapter  1 11 

The  Will  to  Struggle 

Chapter  II 11 

The  Psychology  of  Struggle 

Chapter  III 45 

Struggle  as  Morality 

Chapter  IV 69 

Struggle  as  State-craft 

Chapter  V 84 

The  Economic  Struggle 

Chapter  VI 126 

Struggle  as  War 

Chapter  VII 149 

Struggle  as  Religion 


Foreword 


ON  THE  WAR  AND  THE  BOOK 

WE  HAVE  promised  ourselves  that  this  War  is  to  be 
the  last.  Still,  how  do  we  know?  We  did  not  seek  it, 
yet  it  came.  We  are  in  the  grip  of  momentous  cur- 
rents, we  know  not  how.  Evidently,  we  still  do  not  know  the 
laws  by  which  we  live.  Tho  we  have  stored  up  great  accu- 
mulations of  miscellaneous,  unrelated,  unassimilated  facts 
concerning  ourselves,  these  accumulations  have  only  served 
to  make  confusion  worse  confounded.  And  yet,  the  great 
problems  with  which  the  world  is  wrestling  so  bloodily 
to-day  are  compounded  of  the  measure  and  quality  of  our 
self-knowledge.  We  still  do  not  know  our  place  in  the 
scheme  of  things;  and  the  blows  of  the  Germans  resound- 
ing against  the  gates  of  Paris,  beat  also  upon  the  faith  in 
the  hearts  of  men. 

If  the  Great  War,  which  has  descended  upon  us  like  a 
visitation  from  another  world,  is  not  really  native  to  our 
true  nature  as  human  beings,  why  does  it  have  such  a  hold 
upon  us?  Whence  does  it  derive  its  power  to  stretch  forth 
its  gruesome  hand  and  drag  us,  open-eyed,  protesting, 
horror-stricken,  into  its  dread  vortex?  Why  are  we  finally 
fascinated  by  it  and  go  exulting  into  the  fray? 

To  accuse  the  world  of  inconsistency  and  hypocrisy 
provides  us  with  no  explanation.  Beneath  every  cover  of 
duplicity  is  concealed  some  earnestness  of  purpose.  What 
is  it?    What  is  the  blundering  purpose  of  the  world? 

Some  years  ago — in  the  year  1911,  to  be  precise — I 
wrote  a  book*  in  which  I  attempted  to  set  forth  this  riddle 
and  its  answer.  The  whole  problem  seemed  to  me  then — 
as  it  does  now,  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  Great  War — to  be 
embodied  in  the  correct  understanding  of  pain  and  struggle 

*The  Book  of  Pain-Struggle 


and  their  true  avenues  of  expression;  the  whole  solution,  in 
the  frank  recognition  of  pain  as  of  the  very  stuff  of  life  and 
the  way  in  which  it  must  normally  react  in  struggle.  Per- 
haps if  the  subject  had  been  given  a  tithe  of  the  study 
devoted  to  armaments  and  tactics,  the  world  would  not  to- 
day be  peering  so  anxiously  out  of  the  bloody  abyss  in  which 
finds  it  itself. 

I  might  have  been  willing  to  wait  a  while  longer 
before  attempting,  with  my  poor  powers,  to  touch  upon 
this  great  theme  again,  but  this  cataclysmic  War  which, 
please  God,  we  shall  win,  impels  me  to  speak  once  more  at 
this  time. 

Is  this  War  of  us  or  of  another?  Is  it  inherent  in  our 
life  or  not?  If  it  is,  why  do  we  not  adjust  our  life  and  our 
sense  of  values  to  it?  If  not,  how  comes  this  eruption  in 
our  midst  and  what  can  we  do  to  avoid  its  repetition?  In 
short,  what  has  been  wrong  with  our  thinking,  what  is 
wanting  in  our  self-knowledge? 

It  behooves  us  to  give  these  questions  our  serious 
attention. 

Hyman  Segal 

NewYork.May,  1918. 


The  Law  of  Struggle 


THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  WILL  TO  STRUGGLE 
1.  Pain-and-Strug"gle. 

THE  scientist  in  his  demonstrations  relies  not  alone  upon 
his  statistical  charts,  but  upon  a  knowledge  of  life  in 
his  readers  by  which  his  proofs  must  ultimately  be 
tested.  The  statistics  of  pain  and  struggle  in  particular  have 
first  of  all  to  be  perceived  by  the  inner  eye,  and  only  then 
tested  find  checked  formally.  If  we  have  the  eye  to  see  it, 
the  necessary  data  is  unescapable  wherever  we  turn,  whether 
we  view  life  as  a  whole  or  examine  it  in  small  sections  under 
the  microscope. 

The  essential  thing  in  order  to  grasp  the  subject  is  to 
know  pain  when  we  confront  it,  even  tho  we  have  been 
wont  to  recognize  it  only  in  tooth-aches  and  ailments  generally 
which  are  only  acute  instances  of  disproportion  between  pain 
and  struggle.  Our  view  of  pain  must  become  more  compre- 
hensive, and  we  must  recognize  struggle  even  when  not  ac- 
companied by  the  startling  signs  of  physical  strife.  Physical 
conflict  has  always  been  held  out  to  us  as  almost  the  synonym 
of  struggle.  And  yet,  even  in  this  class  of  struggle,  it  is  not 
necessarily  the  most  clamorous  and  ferocious  antagonist  who 
is  the  most  redoubtable.  So,  too,  we  are  accustomed  to  think 
of  the  lion,  the  tiger,  the  bandit  and  the  burglar  as  very 
formidable  fighters  indeed  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are 
very  feeble  strugglers  and  have  long  been  out-classed;  so 
much  so,  in  fact,  that  they  hardly  enter  into  our  calculations 
to-day. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  a  great  many  far-reaching 
struggles  in  nature  that  seldom  arrest  our  attention.    Who, 

11 


12  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

for  example,  stops  to  think  of  the  battle-royal  that  goes  on 
between  the  insect  and  the  plant,  the  ants  and  their  prey, 
the  innumerable  little  invaders,  such  as  the  nits  that  settle 
upon  the  eye-balls  of  the  African  buffalo  or  the  combats 
which  go  on  in  our  own  blood?  Who  stops  to  take  stock  of 
the  fact  that  the  basis  of  our  daily  existence,  our  goings  and 
our  comings,  our  conversations  and  dealings,  is  founded  upon 
pains  or  yearnings  innumerable  fulfilling  themselves  thru 
the  years,  in  their  ordered  ways,  in  barely  discernable  little 
struggles?  So,  for  instance,  hunger  is  a  form  of  pain,  eating 
the  struggle  therefrom;  anger  is  pain,  the  act  of  punishment, 
struggle;  fear,  anxiety,  ambition,  desire  or  yearning  of  what- 
ever kind  are  all  forms  of  pain.  The  act  by  which  these  are 
allayed  or  satisfied  represents  the  struggle  therefrom.  These 
things  occur  and  recur  all  the  time.  Let  a  man  seat  himself 
comfortably  in  his  chair,  let  him  try  to  lie  down,  let  him 
walk,  let  him  win  the  scholarship  that  he  coveted,  the  fortune 
or  wife  of  his  dreams,  yet  the  surges  of  pain  will  reach  his 
highest  accomplishment  and  beget  new  desires  which  crave 
fulfillment  or  struggle. 

Take  any  little  pastel  from  life — take  this  one  that  any- 
one may  see  enacted  through  his  window  at  one  time  or 
another: — 

Two  dogs,  one  a  black,  wooly-haired  mongrel,  the  other 
a  black-and-tan,  are  fighting  in  the  street,  snarling  and  biting 
each  other  with  eager,  panting  barks.  Passers-by  pause  to 
watch  them;  a  minister  of  peaceful  mien  slows  up  in  his  gait 
somewhat  and  gazes  at  them  with  an  amused  interest  difficult 
to  suppress;  the  little  boys  shout  with  glee;  and  a  grinning 
policeman  approaches  the  fighting  pair  with  slow,  restrained 
steps,  hoping  to  see  a  decision  before  the  dogs  can  be 
separated. 

Finally,  the  little  black-and-tan  dog  gives  a  piteous  yelp, 
and,  shaking  himself  free,  skulks  away  with  the  crestfallen, 
disgraced  air  discernible  more  or  less,  in  all  that  experience 
defeat;  with  the  black  dog  in  triumphant  pursuit. 

The  little  crowd  comes  to  itself  again,  as  it  were,  the 
business  man  hastening  to  resume  the  daily  struggles  of  his 
class,  the  minister  to  assail  the  devil  and  the  problems  of  his 


THE  WILL  TO  STRUGGLE  13 

parish,  the  policeman  to  continue  his  vigil,  and  the  little  boys, 
the  adventures  of  the  day. 

The  foregoing  is  simply  one  of  the  innumerable  trifling 
but  obvious  little  incidents  of  a  day  illuminating  the  life- 
interest  of  sentient  beings,  the  rule  of  struggle  in  life.  But 
there  are  less  obvious  examples  pointing  in  the  same  direction. 

For  example,  who  has  not  paused  involuntarily  at  one 
time  or  another  to  watch  a  man  in  the  pursuit  of  a  fast-going 
street-car?  We  are  transfixed,  as  it  were,  until  we  see  the 
eager  runner  actually  aboard  the  vehicle,  when  our  interest 
in  him  ceases.  So,  too,  tho  we  may  consider  a  prize-fight  ever 
so  brutal,  if  it  is  brought  to  our  attention,  it  cannot  fail  to 
interest  us. 

But  I  will  not  cite  instances.  There  are  too  many.  Our 
little  life  is  rounded  with  pain-and-struggle.  When  we  are 
lacking  in  more  concrete  evidences  of  this  fact,  we  are  re- 
minded by  those  mysterious  visitations  of  vague  longings 
and  depressions  that  haunt  even  the  most  cheerful  of  us  all 
thru  life. 

The  statistics  of  struggle  are  everywhere.  There  are  no 
exceptions.  Moreover,  life  is  so  constituted  that  we  must 
needs  suffer  if  every  pain  or  suggestion  of  pain  is  not  duly 
fulfilled.  The  one  horror  of  human  existence  is  the  yearning 
which  is  not  satisfied,  the  uplifted  hammer  which  does  not 
descend,  the  ambition  disappointed,  the  plan  which  does  not 
work  out,  the  promise  not  kept,  the  musical  bar  which  does 
not  fulfill  itself,  the  effort  which  does  not  succeed;  in  fact, 
all  unfulfilled  effort,  thwarted  yearnings  crying  for  struggle, 
are,  in  varying  degrees,  the  most  pitiable  and  the  most  import- 
ant things  in  the  world. 

I  shall  perhaps  be  told,  ''Pooh,  you  are  placing  too  much 
emphasis  upon  one  aspect  of  life.  All  things  are  relative 
only. ' ' 

Things  are  indeed  relative,  but,  as  I  shall  try  to  show  in 
these  pages,  this  relativity  only  has  reference  to  relative  de- 
grees of  the  same  thing — degrees  of  pain  and  struggle.  To 
unravel  the  complicated  filaments  of  our  relations  to  these 
fundamental  causes  is  no  easy  thing  and  one  may  not  be 
uniformly  successful  in  the  undertaking.  But  I  shall  rejoice 
— for  a  while — if  I  succeed  at  least  in  arousing  an  interest  in 


14  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

and  a  study  of  this  old-new  theme  which  has  received  so  little 
of  the  consideration  of  mankind,  and  which  mankind  can 
so  little  afford  not  to  consider,  as  this  great  War  shows.  Such 
interest  and  study,  I  am  convinced^  will  aid  in  revealing  our 
natural  relations  to  the  great  world-issues  of  the  day,  in  dis- 
tinguishing between  necessary  and  unnecessary  forms  of 
struggle,  and  in  thus  clearing  the  way  for  further  struggle. 

2.    Pain  or  Sensitiveness. 

' '  In  the  beginning ' '  there  was  pain  or  sensitiveness.  Sen- 
sitiveness is  the  oldest  thing  in  the  world.  It  was  born  in 
infinity  and  is  without  end.  It  is  not  computable  and  cannot 
be  measured  in  time  nor  space.  It  is  without  dimension  and 
is  imponderable.  In  fact,  time,  space,  dimension  have  no 
existence  apart  from  sensitiveness  and  are  mere  incidents  of 
it.  It  is  the  most  universal  of  all  attributes  and  is  the  most 
mysterious.  It  appears  to  be  perceptible  by  all  the  five  senses 
and  by  none.  It  has  no  substance  and  yet,  it  is  the  very  stuff 
of  life  out  of  which  all  things  are  fashioned  and  in  which  all 
things  have  their  being.  Our  mind  cannot  grasp  its  mystery, 
its  origin,  scope  and  purport.  Yet,  it  is  with  us  all  the  time. 
The  cool  contact  of  the  evening  breeze,  the  grateful  taste  of 
water  when  we  are  even  slightly  thirsty,  the  refreshment 
that  is  in  rest  and  change,  all  these  give  us  but  a  hint  of 
the  yoke  of  pain  or  sensitiveness  under  which  we  continuously 
strive. 

In  the  past,  philosophers  seem  to  have  overlooked  the 
eternal  quality  in  pain  or  sensitiveness.  This  followed  nat- 
urally from  the  fact  that  every  thinker  started  out  with  the 
intention  of  providing  the  world  with  the  cure-all  for  unhap- 
piness.  The  elimination  of  pain  was  therefore  a  first  consid- 
eration and  the  raison  detre  of  their  systems  of  thought. 
To  confess  inability  to  whisk  pain  out  of  life  would  have  been 
tantamount  to  a  confession  of  failure  and  the  uselessness  of 
their  lucubrations.  Pain  has  therefore  always  been  considered 
an  intruder  for  whom  no  place  had  been  provided,  a  vagrant, 
troublesome  visitation,  to  be  extracted  like  a  sore  tooth  from 
the  body  of  life;  at  best,  a  transient  evil  to  be  eradicated  as 
often  as  it  comes  and  having  but  an  adventitious  hold  upon  us. 


THE  WILL  TO  STRUGGLE  15 

In  our  time,  when  the  pain  of  the  world  stands  in  stu- 
pendous relief,  we  are  advised  by  the  votaries  of  Christian 
Science  that  pain  can  be  thought  out  of  existence,  somewhat 
like  the  belief  of  certain  Hindu  sects;  while  our  more  mate- 
rialistic contemporaries,  the  Socialists  and  Utilitarians,  incline 
strongly  to  the  view  that  pain  can  be  eliminated  through  the 
socialization  of  the  state,  civic  reform,  sanitation  and  the  like. 

Yet,  the  evidence  presented  by  all  phenomena  of  life 
seems  to  be  overwhelming  that  pain  is  of  the  very  stuff  of 
life,  that  it  transcends  the  boundaries  of  life,  and  is  present  in 
the  beast  as  well  as  in  what  we  call  inanimate  matter.  Our 
normal  condition  is  the  state  of  pain  from  which  we  are  ever 
struggling.  This  we  realize  most  completely  either  when  we 
are  overtaken  by  calamity  (which  paralyzes  our  will  to  strug- 
gle for  the  time)  or  when  the  pain  is  concentrated  from  some 
cause  in  a  portion  of  our  body  or  mind.  As  long,  however, 
as  the  proportion  of  innumerable  little  struggles  from  these 
pain-sensations  continue,  we  are  fain  to  believe  that  we  enjoy 
what  is  called  ''happiness."  And  the  scale  on  which  these 
pain-combats  are  carried  on  are  for  the  most  part  so  fine 
that  we  are  hardly  aware  of  them.  Who,  for  instance,  notices 
the  relief  one  experiences  in  breathing,  or  in  easing  one's 
position  in  a  chair  by  the  crossing  or  uncrossing  of  a  leg,  or 
is  conscious  of  the  satisfaction  of  giving  utterance  to  thoughts 
or  feelings  which  surge  for  expression?  Indeed,  we  only 
realize  it  when,  as  I  have  said,  it  becomes  extreme  or  when 
by  an  effort  of  the  mind  we  take  cognizance  of  it  in  some  one 
direction  or  ''localize"  the  sensation,  as  it  has  been  termed; 
as  for  instance,  when  one  listens  to  the  vibrations  of  the 
atmosphere  in  his  ear-drums  or  is  able,  by  dispelling  all  other 
sensations,  to  "induce"  the  feeling  of  a  sensation,  say,  in 
his  toe. 

Thus,  too,  all  the  senses  are  degrees  of  sensitiveness  or 
the  faculty  of  feeling  pain.  Tasting,  smelling,  feeling  (touch), 
and  hearing  are  degrees  of  sensitiveness.  Seeing,  too,  is  only 
a  sensation  of  objects  sensed  through  the  organ  called  the  eye. 
It  is  one  of  the  most  delicate  of  the  five,  but  none  the  less,  a 
sensation.  The  sixth  and  rarest  of  all  is  the  sense  of  mental 
perception,  the  understanding.    For  the  mind,  too,  is  one  of 


16  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

the  sensitive  acids  with  which  man  is  endowed  to  perceive 
rarer  substances. 

When  we  understand,  then,  that  we  are  normally  in  a 
state  of  pain  and  that  man's  function  is  struggle  or  the  get- 
ting away  from  pain,  the  inference  becomes  inevitable  that 
all  life  is  the  fulfillment  of  pain  in  struggle;  and  that  the 
basic  law  of  life  is  the  will  to  struggle.  We  shall  see  how 
this  definition  accords  with  universal  phenomena. 

3.  Pain  in  the  Inanimate. 

There  is  a  common  impression  in  the  world  that  things 
inanimate,  i.  e.,  things  that  do  not  seem  to  have  the  sentient 
characteristics  of  living  creatures,  are  devoid  of  all  feeling. 

I  do  not  share  this  view.  I  am  sure  it  is  all  a  question  of 
degree.  Our  own  reason  should  teach  us  to  suspect,  even  if 
our  sensitiveness  does  not,  that  things  about  us  are  also 
sensitive  in  the  same  general  way,  although  the  evidences 
thereof  do  not  have  that  recognizable  quality  to  us  as  human 
beings. 

Still,  if  a  flower  will  wilt  after  being  picked,  what  reason 
have  we  for  believing  that  it  does  not  in  some  flower-conscious 
way  feel  itself  dying?  Why  should  not  the  hoarse  shriek  of 
metal  under  the  belaborment  of  grinding  machinery  be  indi- 
cative of  some  degree  of  sensitiveness,  even  though  so  low 
as  to  be  imperceptible  to  us  ?  What  reason  have  we  for  believ- 
ing that  the  log  of  wood  burning  and  crackling  furiously  in 
the  blaze  is  not  heat-conscious  in  some  degree?  Am  I  the 
only  one  then  to  have  perceived  that  the  water  boiling  in 
the  kettle,  the  sugar  dissolving  in  the  glass  of  water,  the 
darting  blue  flame  in  the  electric  current,  seem  to  have  a 
certain  impressive  responsiveness  to  sensation? 

Doubtless,  it  will  be  explained  that  the  majestic  roar  of 
the  locomotive  is  due  to  purely  physical  causes;  that  it  might 
even  be  diminished  or  eliminated  without  effecting  the  loco- 
motive as  a  whole.  But  are  not  the  stentorian  tones  of  the 
tenor  also  due  to  physical  causes  which  we  have  not  yet 
learned  to  manipulate?  Suppose  we  cut  out  one  of  his  vocal 
cords,  would  it  not  effect  his  singing  ?  I  am  sure,  if  we  apply 
one  of  the  hot  coals  stowed  in  the  belly  of  our  metal  leviathans 


THE  WILL  TO  STRUGGLE  17 

to  the  flesh  of  the  tenor,  the  ensuing  tones  would  be  simply 
astounding,  and  they  would  be  due  to  the  physical  properties 
of  the  singer  over-sensitized  by  the  application  of  the  hot  coal 
to  his  body  exactly  as  in  the  case  of  the  locomotive. 

All  matter  is  sensitive,  differing  only  in  degree.  The  data 
of  scientists,  whether  in  the  field  of  astronomy,  chemistry, 
paleontology,  metallurgy,  physics,  biology  or  elsewhere  is 
simply  a  record  of  the  sensitiveness  of  matter  under  varying 
conditions.  We  are  always  making  new  discoveries  in  these 
fields  and  we  are  apt  to  forget  that  these  discoveries  are  evi- 
dences of  our  relative  callousness  to  the  sensitiveness  of  the 
elements  by  which  we  are  surrounded.  What  are  the  attrac- 
tions and  repulsions  of  matter,  the  heating,  sweating  and 
freezing  points,  dissolutions,  evaporations,  crystalizations  or 
breakages  but  the  evidence  of  reaction  in  struggle  by  inani- 
mate matter  under  varying  conditions  of  pain? 

Matter  may  not  possess  the  five  senses  present  in  man  but 
it  has  the  one  sense  which  is  the  basis  of  all  the  senses — the 
sense  of  contact. 

We  naturally  ask  ourselves.  But  how  conscious  is  matter 
of  its  sensitiveness*?  We  can  only  speculate.  Consciousness 
is  a  very  high  state  of  sensitiveness.  As  far  as  we  know,  only 
man  has  attained  to  it.  I  believe  matter  is  sensitive,  but  not 
conscious  save  only  in  the  limited  sense  in  which  the  word 
consciousness  means  sensitiveness. 

4.    Struggle  and  Evolution. 

Although  pain  is  the  stuff  of  life,  the  universe  is  not 
merely  a  tortured  deposit  in  a  cauldron  of  sensitiveness.  It 
is  given  us  to  re-act  from  pain,  to  fulfill  our  pain,  or,  as  it  is 
best  put,  to  struggle. 

Pain  is  the  dynamic  force  which  keeps  all  creation  in  a 
state  of  universal  flux.  But  it  is  struggle  which  gives  pur- 
pose and  direction  to  the  world.  To  borrow  a  legal  plirase, 
struggle  is  the  executor  of  pain — an  executor  who  is  also  a 
direct  heir.  The  relationship  of  struggle  to  pain  can  only  be 
grasped  by  us  intuitively.  It  is  not  a  relationship  which  is 
capable  of  the  sharp  delimitations  to  which  our  too  human 
minds  are  accustomed.     We  can  only  think  of  struggle  in 


18  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

relation  to  pain  as  the  expression,  the  resolution,  the  embodi- 
ment and  apotheosis  of  the  same  thing.  Subjectively,  it 
appears  to  us  as  relief -with-effort. 

We  see  then  that  life  is  the  fulfillment  of  pain  in  struggle. 
We  are  continually  reacting  from  pain  by  struggle.  These 
processes  go  on  within  us  all  the  time  in  greater  or  less  degree, 
depending  upon  the  accumulation  of  pain  within  us  or  our 
sensitiveness  to  our  experiences. 

Now  it  is  important  to  remember  that  although  these  reac- 
tions or  struggles  from  pain  occur  all  the  time,  they  are  not 
mechanical  operations  barren  of  result.  The  ceaseless  round 
of  pain  and  the  struggle  from  pain  does  not  make  automatons 
of  us.  With  every  urge  of  pain  something  is  added,  some- 
thing will  be  gained  or  created.  The  longing  of  one  year,  if 
it  is  sufficiently  intense,  generally  becomes  the  accomplish- 
ment of  another.  The  cravings  of  one  generation  finds  ful- 
fillment in  another.  Could  the  Russian  Revolution  of  which 
we  are  witness  have  been  possible  without  the  decades  of  pain 
which  preceded  it  ?  Into  every  realization  or  accomplishment 
goes  the  effort,  the  striving,  in  brief,  the  pain-experience  of 
the  past. 

To  use  a  simple  illustration:  Say,  a  blacksmith  is  impelled 
by  ambition  to  wield  his  hammer  daily.  Now  the  sensation 
of  ambition  and  its  reflexes  in  work  again  is  not  barren  of 
all  other  result.  The  physical  experiences  of  each  day  have 
gone  into  the  development  of  the  blacksmith's  muscles.  His 
sinews  grow  in  strength  and  endurance.  Each  day  has  its 
own  gift  to  its  successor.  Now  what  is  true  of  the  black- 
smith 's  muscles  is  also  true  of  his  mental  faculties.  The  latter 
is  not  always  as  easily  demonstratable  in  statistical  terms,  but 
it  is  true,  just  the  same,  or  we  never  could  have  developed  or 
evolved. 

We  are  indebted  to  certain  painstaking  observers  for  the 
discovery  of  the  fact  that  the  physical  characteristics  of  the 
animal  specie  undergo  variations  conformable  to  environment. 
These  discoverers  have  even  succeeded  in  piecing  together  the 
consanguinity  of  almost  the  whole  family  of  living  creatures 
and  shown  how  and  to  what  extent  different  physical  condi- 
tions have  operated  to  effect  structural  growths  and  forma- 


THE  WILL  TO  STRUGGLE  19 

tions.  To  this  tendency  in  nature  has  been  given  the  name  of 
Evolution, 

Now  it  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  the  explanations  of 
Evolution  do  not  really  explain  in  that  they  do  not  touch  the 
kernel  of  things.  Doubtless,  the  same  thought  has  occurred 
to  others.  It  is  true  that  Evolution  has  established  a  common 
tendency  in  living  beings.  But  in  this  it  does  not  go  far 
enough.  The  consanguinity  of  living  beings  with  all  matter 
has  been  in  the  thoughts  of  mankind  from  time  immemorial, 
though  it  still  remains  to  be  demonstrated  scientifically. 

But  the  most  signal  failure  of  Evolution  lies  in  the  fact 
that  it  simply  points  to  a  tendency  but  does  not  suggest  a 
cause  or  origin.  Evolution  itself  is  not  a  cause  but  an  effect. 
It  is  true  that  the  fish  in  a  dark  cave  will  probably  be  blind, 
that  the  giraffe,  by  enforced  stretching  for  food,  will  develop 
a  long  neck,  that  my  hands  will  grow  callosities  with  too  much 
handling  of  the  oar  or  spade;  but  what  is  that  impulse  which 
moves  a  specie  toward  such  a  struggle  with  nature  as  will 
result  in  these  modifications  of  life-habits  and  limbs,  the 
change  in  the  power  of  the  eye  or  the  shape  of  a  foot,  wing 
or  fin  1  In  other  words,  is  there  not  some  dynamic  force  in  the 
heart  of  things  impelling  every  living  organism  to  strive 
and  cope  as  best  it  may  with  all  the  elements  of  which  it  is 
cognizant?  What  is  it?  What  is  it  that  impinges  all  living 
things  against  the  rock  of  environment  and  stamps  them 
with  the  varying  lineaments  of  sentient  life?  Is  it  hunger 
only?  But  how  about  fear,  imitativeness,  antagonism,  the 
sense  of  heat  and  cold,  the  yearning  for  the  congenial  mate? 

It  is  useless  to  look  for  the  cause  in  special  appetites  or 
proclivities  on  the  one  hand  nor  in  extraordinary  places  and 
guises  on  the  other.  It  lies  quite  close  to  our  hand.  It  is 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  primal  pain  or  sensitiveness  which 
is  the  dynamic  force  actuating  all  effort  to  whatever  results 
scientists  have  been  able  to  tabulate  in  living  things.  After 
all,  what  is  hunger  even,  save  a  pain  from  which  we  struggle 
by  the  assimilation  of  food?  So  every  other  appetite  and 
sensibility  is  part  of  the  dynamic  unrest,  yearning  or  pain 
calling  for  its  requisite  struggle. 

With  every  struggle  from  pain  something  is  added; 
something  is  contributed  to  make  some  function  more  adap- 


20  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

table  to  this  form  of  struggle.  Thus,  evolution  is  an  aspect, 
an  incident  of  the  reaction  of  pain  in  struggle.  But  the 
greatest  measure  of  evolution  is  obtainable  through  increased 
sensitiveness,  irrespective  of  physical  metamorphoses.  It  is 
this  which  is  the  real  seat  of  evolution;  and  it  is  important  to 
remember  that  it  is  not  caused  by  but  is  the  cause  of  evolu- 
tion. The  progress  implied  in  evolution  can  by  no  means  be 
disassociated  from  the  normal  processes  of  pain  expressing 
itself  in  struggle.    Evolution  is  an  incident  of  Pain-Struggle. 

5.    The  WiU  To  Struggle. 

At  the  outset,  I  shall  probably  be  confronted  by  an  objec- 
tion born  of  an  older  school  of  thought.  I  shall  be  told  that 
man  has  no  will  to  struggle;  that  he  would  rather  not  strug- 
gle; that  he  has  ''the  will  to  live."    Let  us  consider  this. 

When  we  speak  of  "will"  in  the  scientific  or  universal 
sense,  we  must  reduce  this  faculty  in  man  to  its  simplest 
element.  It  must  not  consist  of  matter  by  way  of  speculation 
as  to  what  he  wishes  or  prefers  but  what  must  be.  For 
instance:  Let  a  small  dog  be  thrown  into  the  water.  Let  us 
imagine  him  to  have  had  no  experience  of  water  and  no  ability 
to  swim.  It  would  be  easy  for  him  to  sink.  Nevertheless,  to 
the  extent  of  his  ability,  he  will  persist  in  using  his  powers 
of  locomotion,  however  crudely,  as  long  as  possible,  simply 
in  order  not  to  surrender  to  the  state  of  helplessness  which  is 
the  opposite  of  struggle. 

To  cite  another  example:  If  I  unconsciously  place  my 
hand  on  a  hot  stove,  I  hastily  withdraw  it,  not  because  my  life 
is  endangered  (although  the  danger  may  be  conceded  to  be 
present),  but  because  I  am  conscious  of  pain  from  which  I 
struggle  irrespective  of  consequences. 

Again,  nothing  shows  us  the  strength  and  persistence  of 
the  Will  to  Struggle  as  the  example  of  the  suicide.  (As  a 
matter  of  fact,  few  things  are  more  common  than  the  habit 
of  risking  one 's  life  which  is  almost  part  of  the  daily  routine 
of  many. )  But  in  the  case  of  the  suicide  the  so-called  will  to 
live  is  flagrantly  set  at  naught.  Yet  it  is  of  the  very  nature  of 
a  fundamental  ''will,"  if  it  exists  at  all,  that  it  be  obeyed 
under  all  circumstances,  that  it  be  unescapable. 


THE  WILL  TO  STRUGGLE  21 

But,  it  may  be  argued,  does  not  the  suicide  likewise  dis- 
prove the  Will  to  Struggle,  since  by  taking  his  life  he  cuts  off 
his  capacity  for  further  endeavor'?  This  is  not  the  case, 
however.  The  suicide  is  confronted  by  the  overwhelming 
desire  to  avoid  the  immediate  pain  as  he  knows  it.  The  act 
of  suicide  is  an  act  of  struggle  freeing  him  from  that  pain. 
Granted  that  it  is  of  a  lower  order  of  struggle,  it  is  still 
struggle.  The  fact  that  by  this  deed,  this  struggle,  he  cuts 
off  all  possibilities  of  further  struggle,  may  be  a  powerful 
deterrent,  but,  however  true,  it  is  only  matter  by  way  of 
speculation.  He  obeys  his  Will  to  Struggle  in  its  immediate 
relation  to  his  present  pain,  which  for  the  purposes  of  any 
analvsis  of  Will,  is  all  that  he  is  bound  to  do.  It  is  not  a 
renunciation  of  struggle,  much  as  he  himself  may  believe  it 
to  be;  it  is  the  assumption  of  a  lower  standard  of  struggle  to 
counteract  the  immediate  sense  of  pain. 

I  have  heard  of  serpents  crossed  in  love,  who  in  their 
jealousy  or  rage  bite  themselves  and  die.  There  we  have  an 
instance  of  the  will  to  evade  the  immediate  pain  by  plunging 
into  another  sensation  by  way  of  distraction — from  which 
death,  we  must  presume,  in  the  case  of  the  serpent,  comes  as 
an  unforeseen  result.  The  habit  of  some  people  to  bite  their 
lips  or  fingers  or  seek  other  diversions  of  this  kind,  is  funda- 
mentally a  process  of  the  same  kind  and  is  expressive  of  their 
will  to  struggle,  each  according  to  the  nature  of  his  temper  or 
development. 

But  these  instances  are  insignificant  in  the  light  of  the 
examples  afforded  us  in  the  history  of  the  development  of 
man  and  beast.  Struggle  with  both  has  been  and  remains  a 
first  principle.  It  is  idle  to  say  that  this  struggle  comes  from 
the  conflict  of  wills  to  live.  From  whence  comes  this  percep- 
tion of  conflict  in  man?  But  let  us  imagine  that  in  the  case 
of  man  it  comes  by  virtue  of  a  sophistication,  a  perversion  of 
the  intellect  in  which  his  natural  instinct  is  suppressed.  How 
comes  it,  however,  to  the  beast  f  Is  this  not  an  extraordinary 
prerogative  for  so  low  an  order  of  creation  to  arrogate  to 
itself? 

So,  too,  the  doctrine  that  self-preservation  is  the  first  law 
of  nature  is  utterly  wrong.  It  is  the  last  consideration.  Self- 
preservation  is  simply  incidental  to  our  instinctive  habit  of 


22  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

defence  against  all  forms  of  attack  as  a  habit  of  struggle. 
But  when  we  are  not  attacked,  we  ourselves  do  the  attacking. 
For  it  is  struggle,  not  self-preservation,  which  is  ''the  first 
law  of  nature. ' ' 

More  worthy  of  attention  than  the  idea  of  the  so-called 
''will  to  live"  is  one  more  recently  propounded.  It  is  sug- 
gested that  there  is  a  "will  to  power."  Now,  we  have  seen 
that  the  fallacy  inherent  in  the  idea  of  the  "will  to  live"  is 
that  it  is  really  an  afterthought,  not  a  first  consideration. 
Now,  while  the  first  idea  suffers  from  being  an  after-thought 
and  not  a  first  consideration,  the  latter  suffers  from  being 
an  approximation,  and  it  is  only  by  resolving  the  conception 
of  Will  into  its  simplest  element  that  a  law  of  universal  appli- 
cation may  be  hoped  for. 

Let  us  see  what  is  power.  Power  is  accumulated  pain. 
In  other  words,  pain  is  power. 

Now  pain  or  power  is  not  a  thing  that  is  willed.  It  is 
present.  When  present  in  sufficient  volume  it  begets  struggle, 
or,  as  it  may  be  said,  it  must  express  itself.  This  expression 
is  will,  but  power  is  simply  the  thing  expressed.  Thus,  trans- 
lated in  terms  of  Pain-Struggle,  power  is  accumulated  pain, 
whether  it  be  expressed  in  the  form  of  a  volt  of  electricity  or 
horse-power,  the  yet  unexpressed  longing  of  an  ambitious  stu- 
dent in  a  garret,  the  fury  of  a  beast  in  pain,  or  the  yearnings 
of  a  generation  of  men.  In  other  words,  to  say  that  that  Will 
is  "will  to  power"  is  to  say  that  it  is  will  to  pain  instead  of 
will  to  the  expression  of  pain,  that  is,  to  struggle.  Pain  does 
not  crave  pain,  but  to  express  itself,  i.  e.,  to  struggle. 

Will  may  be  divided  into  two  classes :  Human  or  organized 
will,  and  will  in  nature  or  unorganized  will. 

Human  or  organized  will  is  the  kind  of  will  in  which 
the  element  of  volition  seems  to  be  present. 

Will  in  nature  or  unorganized  will  is  present  in  all  phe- 
nomena, including  man,  and  is  proved  by  the  responsiveness 
of  all  phenomena  to  certain  stimulii;  its  presence  in  man  is 
made  evident  by  his  reflex  actions,  as  for  example,  when  we 
touch  hot  or  cold  substances,  etc. 

It  is  apparent,  then,  that  will  is  fundamental  in  man  and 
nature.     But  the  attribute  of  organized  or  volitional  will  is 


THE  WILL  TO  STRUGGLE  23 

given  US  in  corresponding  degrees  as  we  are  more  or  less 
sensitive  or,  in  other  words,  as  we  know  pain. 

See  you  a  strong  man,  a  "self-made"  man?  We  can  be 
certain  that  somehow  pain  has  burnt  deeply  into  his  soul  and 
has  become  resolved  into  Will.  We  often  find  the  sons  of 
strong,  "self-made"  men  lacking  in  will-power  because  they 
lack  the  foundation  of  experience  in  pain  which  would  have 
crystallized  into  Will.  The  maniac,  the  tortured  prisoner  in 
bonds,  the  highly  sensitive  person,  however  wrought  upon, 
will  show  tremendous  will-power  under  the  stress  of  pain  and 
overcome  unbelievable  obstacles. 

In  order  to  establish  the  fact  that  we  have  really  acquired 
a  correct  conception  of  fundamental  will,  we  must  make  cer- 
tain, for  one  thing,  that  our  "will"  is  universal  in  character. 
It  must  apply  to  man  as  well  as  to  beast  and  to  inanimate 
matter  as  well  as  to  either.  That  the  will  to  struggle  exists 
in  man  and  beast  is,  I  hope,  established  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  reader.  I  have  also  indicated  that  the  same  will  to  strug- 
gle exists  and  is  bound  to  exist  in  matter  because  matter  is 
also  in  a  state  of  pain  or  sensitiveness  which  is  expressed  in 
the  struggle  or  metamorphosis  common  to  matter  under  given 
conditions  of  sensitiveness. 

I  admit,  however,  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  will  to 
struggle  in  man,  beast  and  matter.  There  is  a  difference  in 
the  relative  will  to  struggle  even  as  between  men.  This  dif- 
ference consists  in  the  amount  of  volition  present  in  the 
fundamental  will.  Thus,  in  matter,  although  the  fundamental 
will  is  there,  volition  is  absent.  We  feel  this  to  be  true, 
because  matter  will  always  react  in  the  same  way  under  the 
same  conditions,  while  we  can  have  no  such  certainty  about 
the  reactions  of  human  beings.  On  this  account,  it  is  best  to 
call  the  struggle  of  matter,  reflexes.  Thus,  all  the  planets 
flying  in  their  orbits,  for  example,  are  not  engaged  in  an  act 
of  volition,  but  represent  reflexes  from  the  pain  or  sensitive- 
ness of  which  the}^  are  conscious. 

In  the  case  of  the  beast,  we  approach  somewhat  nearer 
to  the  idea  of  volition  in  the  will  to  struggle.  Doubtless, 
many  actions  of  the  beast — as  in  man — are  merely  reflex 
movements  from  pain,  although  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that 
all  actions  of  all  beasts  are  merely  reflex  in  their  nature.    But 


24  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

this  is  an  inquiry  which  I  would  prefer  to  leave  to  more 
learned  students  of  animal  life  than  I  am. 

Li  man,  as  in  matter,  the  will  to  struggle  is  present  in 
most  instances,  it  is  true,  as  non-volitional  reflexes  from  pain. 
This  has  reference  to  his  unconscious  existence  when  he  is 
on  the  same  plane  with  matter.  But  he  is  also  capable  of  and 
constantly  exercises  volitional  reaction  or  struggle,  which  dis- 
tinguishes him  above  all  other  creations  responding  to  the  will 
to  struggle.  Nay,  some  men  even  attain  to  what  is  called 
Free  Will  which  is  only  obtainable  through  the  comprehension 
of  and  union  with  the  universal  scheme  of  things;  this  is  the 
highest  attainment  of  volition  in  conjunction  with  Will.  But 
leaving  the  question  of  Free  Will  out  of  consideration,  the 
great  distinguishing  difference  between  the  will  to  struggle  in 
matter  and  in  man  is  that,  in  the  one.  Will  is  merely  a  reflex, 
Avhile  in  the  other,  it  is  largely  volitional.  Volitional  will  is 
the  highest  form  of  organized  struggle  from  pain. 

6.    The  Survival  of  the  Sensitive. 

It  is  a  fact  that,  generally  speaking,  the  *' fittest"  do  sur- 
vive the  unfit.  It  is  a  fact  in  nature  which  is  so  obvious  that 
it  requires  no  argument.  But  it  does  require  some  interpre- 
tation. 

What  does  it  mean  to  be  the  * '  fittest  ? "  I  believe  it  means 
to  be  adapted  or  to  be  able  to  adapt  one's  self  to  difficult 
conditions  and  persist  in  spite  of  them.  In  other  words,  the 
survival  of  the  fittest  is  encompassed  through  adaptability — 
adaptability  in  struggle.  But  whence  comes  adaptability? 
Adaptability  comes  with  sensitiveness. 

Whence  comes  it,  for  example,  that  a  race  schooled  in 
suffering  becomes  so  adaptable?  Why  does  it  so  readily 
assimilate  the  culture  of  other  peoples  and  become  so  pro- 
ficient in  the  art,  literature,  trade,  industry,  politics  and  the 
very  manners  of  alien  peoples!  To  what  is  it  due,  save  its 
exceptional  experience  in  pain  and  struggle  which  has  sharp- 
ened its  sensitiveness  to  a  superlative  degree? 

In  the  flesh,  it  is  the  physically  best  adapted  that  sur- 
vive those  physically  less  adapted.  As  between  the  flesh  and 
the  spirit,  the  spiritually  adapted  will  survive  the  physically 


THE  WILL  TO  STRUGGLE  25 

adapted  because  mind  is  more  powerful  than  matter.  This  is 
how  man  attained  to  the  rule  of  the  animal  world  and  why 
civilized  races  exercise  dominion  over  barbarians. 

The  '* fittest,"  then,  are  the  most  sensitive;  and  we  have 
already  seen  that  the  most  sensitive  are  the  most  powerful  in 
struggle.  They  are  the  most  adaptable  and  can  grapple  best 
with  the  forces  of  nature,  beast  and  man.  Premonitions  of 
changes  of  climate — or  of  politics — reach  and  affect  their 
sensitive  tissues — or  consciousness — long  before  their  more 
callous  brethren  suspect  what  is  in  the  wind. 

To  become  *'fit"  in  some  circumstances  may  require 
increased  physical  strength  or  endurance  or  a  prehensile  tail 
or  wings  or  a  skin  covered  with  thick  fur  or  an  acute  ear  or 
sharp  eyes  or  keen  sense  of  smell  or  a  good  memory  or  an 
intuitive  mind.  It  may  require  several  if  not  all  of  these 
things.  But  none  of  these  things  can  be  gotten  or  developed 
through  the  years  save  through  sensitiveness  to  the  conditions 
that  require  them.  It  is  true  that  the  degree  of  sensitiveness 
required  in  the  development  of  claws  or  of  a  skin  covered 
with  fur  may  not  be  of  a  relatively  high  order  and  may  be 
entirely  subconscious,  it  may  be  nothing  but  the  sensitiveness 
of  tissue;  but  it  is  sensitiveness  nevertheless,  without  which 
there  could  be  no  accommodation  or  adaptability  to  nature, 
and  therefore  no  successful  struggle  insuring  survival  of  the 
specie  in  question.  For  the  survival  of  the  ** fittest,"  whether 
we  have  in  mind  beast  or  man,  can  mean  nothing  else  than  the 
survival  of  the  most  sensitive. 

The  sensitiveness  of  man  is  so  extraordinary  that  he  can 
often  see  his  good  or  his  evil  on  the  way  before  it  has  arrived. 
In  order  to  embrace  the  good  and  forestall  evil,  he  promul- 
gates his  laws  of  hygiene,  morality,  and  conduct  generally. 
These  laws  are  intended  to  have  the  effect  of  keeping  each 
generation  in  health  and  of  enabling  it  to  transmit  its  strug- 
gle to  succeeding  generations.  Thus  it  is  that  the  sensitiveness 
of  man  has  enabled  him  to  keep  his  various  adversaries  at  bay 
while  his  callous  cousins  have  been  surprised  by  forces 
beyond  their  strength,  endurance  or  ingenuity  and  were  anni- 
hilated or  dominated  and  stunted  by  them.  Man  has  survived 
through  his  sensitiveness;  and  his  laws  of  hygiene  and  of 


26  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

morality,  his  traditions  of  adequate  conduct  under  all  circum- 
stances as  well  as  his  spirit  of  scientific  inquiry  are  simply 
the  expression  of  his  inborn,  far-reaching,  sleepless  anxiety. 

I  know  that  the  idea  that  has  gained  currency  is  that  the 
principles  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  implies  the  survival  of 
the  callous,  of  the  brute.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the 
truth. 

The  survival  of  man  thus  far  indicates  the  principle  of 
the  survival  of  the  most  sensitive.  I  shall  endeavor  to  show 
hereafter  that  the  continued  survival  of  man  can  only  be 
realized  by  following  out  the  necessary  implications  of  this 
principle  and  the  extension  of  sensitiveness  into  all  relation- 
ships; how  our  psychology,  morality,  state-craft  and  relig- 
iosity are  expressions  of  this  ever-growing  sensitiveness ;  how 
our  so-called  science  of  economics  must  reckon  with  it  and 
express  it;  and  how  the  Great  War  of  which  we  are  witness 
is  a  conflict  between  a  lower  and  a  higher  order  of  sensitive- 
ness in  the  world. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  STRUGGLE 

1.  Why  Psychology? 

THAT  psychology  is  related  to  individual  as  well  as 
national  struggle  there  can  be  no  question.  The  War 
has  taught  us  something  of  the  practical  workings  of 
human  psychology.  Germany,  in  particular,  has  played 
upon  the  psychology  of  peoples  and,  in  fact,  all  the  bellig- 
erents have  had  to  weave  psychological  considerations  into 
their  war-policy.  It  is  important,  then,  to  know  the  workings 
of  human  psychology,  not  alone  for  war  purposes,  but  to 
enable  us  to  learn  the  natural  limits  of  our  demands  upon 
each  other  and  to  abide  by  them.  In  fact,  our  ideas  of  mo- 
rality itself  can  only  be  clarified  by  an  understanding  of  the 
real  principles  of  human  psychology. 

2.  The  Ego. 

In  considering  the  ego  or  selfhood,  much  becomes  clear 
if  we  view  self  simply  as  the  unit  of  sensitiveness.  So  viewed, 
we  can  see,  for  instance,  that  the  germ  or  the  jelly-fish  stirring 
uneasily  under  some  irritant,  or  the  plant  opening  its  leaves 
to  the  morning  light  and  shutting  them  at  dusk,  are  blood- 
relatives  of  mankind.  All  creation  is  full  of  units  of  sensi- 
tiveness. 

But  the  ego  of  man  is  a  thing  of  infinite  capacity  for  con- 
traction and  expansion.  This  process  in  the  ego,  described 
roughly  as  contraction  and  expansion,  grows  by  an  ever- 
increasing  sensitiveness  to  and  contact  with  pain.  "We  do  not 
possess  a  plurality  of  selves,  as  is  sometimes  averred,  but  self 
is  capable  of  many  modifications  under  different  degrees  of 
pain-stimuli. 

The  primitive,  naked  ego  or  selfhood  is  our  starting 
point.  It  is  concerned  primarily  with  self-interest  in  the 
narrowest  sense  of  the  word.  Nature  endows  this  selfhood 
with  the  knowledge  of  pain,  hunger,  thirst,  physical  injury, 
the  need  for  exercise,  shelter,  rest,  and  ego  expands  to  this 

27 


28  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

extent.  Next  comes  the  attachment  and  responsibility  for 
offspring;  then  comes  the  larger  interest  compelled  by  love 
and  the  devotion  to  another  resulting  in  a  more  expanded 
selfhood.  Next,  the  more  or  less  conscious  allegiance  to  a 
herd  or  a  tribe  or  a  community  and  the  expansion  of  indi- 
vidual interests  involved  therein. 

In  the  true  consideration  of  ego,  the  words  selfish  and 
unselfish  can  be  regarded  in  their  accepted  sense  only  if 
understood  to  be  degrees  of  the  same  thing.  Both  egoism 
and  altruism  are  stages  in  the  development  of  the  ego; 
altruism  is  an  enlarging  of  the  radii  of  self-interest. 

Take,  for  example,  the  instance  of  a  suckling  infant.  At 
the  outset,  its  ego  is  limited  by  the  simple  physical 'desire  for 
nourishment.  This,  apparently,  is  the  limit  of  its  interest  in 
the  world.  Later,  its  ego  expands  to  include  other  desires, 
say,  for  toys  or  sundry  other  objects  and  even  persons.  Some 
are  wont  to  regard  these  desires  as  evidence  of  wilfulness 
and  nascent  selfishness.  On  the  contrary,  these  are  indica- 
tions of  the  expansion  of  the  ego  in  the  infant  to  include  wider 
interests.  In  the  course  of  some  years,  the  infant  absorbs  the 
particular  personality  of  its  mother  so  fully  that  the  well- 
being  of  the  mother  becomes  almost  a  cardinal  necessity  to 
the  child.  From  this  point  other  interests  and  attachments 
enter  into  the  composition  of  the  ego,  making  it  sensitive  to 
all  those  life-interests  which  the  average  person  cannot  shake 
off  because  they  become  amalgamated  with  what  we  call 
self.  The  greatest  expansion  of  self  is  not  exemplified  in 
''selfish"  persons  but  in  the  friends  of  mankind,  public- 
spirited  persons,  patriots,  prophets,  men  who  have  the  wel- 
fare of  the  world  at  heart  and  feel  for  its  well-being  as  part 
of  their  own  well-being,  seers  who  can  distend  the  radii  of 
their  self-interest  to  include  other  peoples  and  climes  and 
are  sensitive  to  the  harvests  of  later  eras  than  their  own. 

Thus,  if  I  were  to  represent  the  ego — or  the  unit  of  sensi- 
tiveness— bv  a  sketch,  I  should  draw  a  circle  to  contain 
a  point  like  the  hub  of  a  wheel  with  ever-widening  radii. 
I  should  call  the  hub  or  starting-point,  the  Ego  or  Unit  of 
Sensitiveness  which  would  represent  the  narrowest  cii-cle  of 
our  individual  interests  in  its  most  undeveloped  stage.  From 
the  radii  springing  out  of  the  initial  circle  of  selfhood  I 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  STRUGGLE      29 

would  draw  a  wider  circle  which  I  should  call  Filial  Sensi- 
tiveness or  Love  of  Parents.  From  the  combined  radii  of  the 
initial  and  succeeding  circle  I  would  form  a  still  wider  circle 
which  I  would  call  the  Sense  of  Attachment  to  the  Chosen 
Mate  or  Love.  In  the  same  way,  I  would  form  five  other 
circles  successively  larger  in  size,  all  of  which  would  be 
radiated  from  the  original  starting-point  or  Unit  of  Sensi- 
tiveness. Thus,  I  would  call  the  fourth  circle,  Sensitiveness 
or  Responsibility  to  Family;  the  fifth  circle,  Sensitiveness  to 
Friendships;  the  sixth  circle.  Sensitiveness  to  the  Well-being 
of  the  (Community  or  Nation;  then  there  is  the  seventh  exten- 
sion of  selfhood  or  circle  indicated  in  the  sensitiveness  to  or 
sense  of  identity  with  the  well-being  of  the  world  as  a  whole 
as  shown  by  the  prophets  and  humanitarians;  finally,  there 
is  the  eighth  circle  or  extension  of  the  ego  evinced  by  those 
seeking  salvation  through  religion,  that  is,  a  selfhood  sensi 
tive  as  to  its  place  in  the  cosmic  scheme  of  things  and  hunger- 
ing after  a  form  of  immortality  or  survival  after  death.  The 
order  of  the  extensions  of  our  selfhood  may  not  follow  my 
sketch — which  is  only  an  approximation — but  it  is  essentially 
correct. 

Thus,  if  we  follow  the  implications  of  my  imaginary 
sketch,  all  our  aims,  no  matter  how  benevolent,  are  simply 
extensions  of  our  ego  or  selfhood.  Our  ego,  which  is  the  unit 
or  starting  point  of  our  sensitiveness  or  interest,  is  the  source 
and  the  periphery  of  all  our  wishes  and  our  works. 

3.    Selfishness,  Unselfishness. 

Is  there,  then,  no  distinction  between  selfishness  and 
unselfishness?  There  is  a  considerable  difference,  but  it  is  a 
measurable  one.  It  lies  in  the  difference  in  the  development 
or  distension  of  the  ego  or  selfhood.  Those  who  are  selfish 
have  a  small  ego,  have  a  smaller  radius  of  sensitiveness,  live 
in  a  small  world  and  have  more  limited  interests.  The 
unselfish  have  a  larger  ego,  a  larger  radius  of  sensitiveness, 
live  in  a  larger  world  and  have  wider  interests.  When  we 
speak  of  selfishness  and  unselfishness,  therefore,  we  simply 
refer  to  comparative  stages  in  the  sensitive  development  or 
radius  of  the  ego. 


30  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

The  Old  "Woman  Who  Lived  in  a  Shoe  was  certainly 
unselfish  in  relation  to  her  numerous  progeny.  Her  selfhood 
was  charged  with  responsibility  for  their  welfare,  nor  could 
she  rid  herself  of  her  sense  of  obligation.  But  suppose  a 
book-agent  made  his  way  into  her  crowded  abode  and  offered 
to  interest  her  in  the  complete  history  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion? Her  callous  imperviousness  to  this  great  national 
tragedy  would  be  the  height  of  selfishness.  Nevertheless,  we 
would  not  condemn  her  because  we  realize  clearly  that  her 
Shoe-ego,  broad  enough  to  contain  her  brood,  could  not  extend 
far  enough  to  include  so  divergent  an  interest. 

4.  The  Sense  of  Duty. 

There  has  been  considerable  difficulty  in  finding  a  defi- 
nition for  duty.  Philosophers  of  former  times  have  wondered 
because  the  sense  of  duty  apparently  stood  in  such  complete 
isolation  from  the  other  faculties  attributed  to  man.  Probably 
this  difficulty  would  have  been  overcome  if  the  nature  of  self 
would  have  been  better  understood  and  if  selfishness  and 
unselfishness  would  not  have  been  considered  as  being  at 
opposite  poles  instead  of  degrees  of  the  same  thing,  as  they 
really  are. 

For  duty  stands  in  no  such  ethical  isolation  as  has  been 
imagined.  Duty  is  an  attribute  of  extended  selfhood.  It  is 
simply  the  extension  of  the  sense  of  obligation  to  self  beyond 
the  immediate  tangible  interests  of  the  individual.  This  does 
not  mean,  however,  that  the  element  of  self-interest  is  missing 
in  the  sense  of  duty.  Thus,  one  may  have  a  sense  of  duty 
to  one's  friends,  family,  tribe  or  country,  but  they  are  all 
extensions  of  selfhood. 

5.  The  Growth  of  Selfhood. 

Since  self  is  the  unit  of  sensitiveness,  it  follows  that  the 
more  comprehensive  the  ego  the  more  sensitive  it  is  and 
the  more  complex.  As  we  have  already  seen,  when  we  speak 
of  unselfishness,  we  mean  selfishness  of  a  wider  radius.  This 
wider  radius  of  selfishness — or  unselfishness — only  comes  with 
the  accession  of  a  wider  range  of  sensitiveness.    What  brings 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  STRUGGLE      31 

a  wider  range  of  sensitiveness  ?  Evidently,  experience  in  pain 
and  struggle.  Every  experience  of  pain  increases  our  sensi- 
tiveness, and,  by  bringing  new  centres  of  sympathy  into  the 
radius  of  our  ken,  helps  to  distend  our  ego  or  selfhood,  and 
to  add  new  spheres  to  the  world  which  is  in  every  individual's 
being. 

We  thus  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  ego  in  its 
manifestations  of  growth  or  extension  through  the  experience 
of  pain  and  struggle.  In  this  connection  it  would  be  well  to 
bear  in  mind  that  ego  and  struggle  in  an  individual  always 
maintain  an  exact  proportion.  The  smaller — the  less  inclu- 
sive— the  ego  in  an  individual,  the  smaller  the  capacity  to 
struggle;  the  larger — the  more  extended  or  inclusive — the 
greater  the  capacity  to  struggle. 

-The  struggle  of  the  tiger,  for  example,  is  said  to  be 
headlong  and  unpremeditated;  it  proceeds  from  an  unde- 
veloped ego  whose  manifestations  in  struggle  are  simple, 
limited  and  direct.  More  extended  and  wary  is  the  ego  and 
struggle  of  the  fox,  say,  and  argues  greater  experience  of 
pain.  If  we  go  into  the  realm  of  men,  we  find  that  their 
struggle  is  still  more  subtle  and  extended,  tho,  often  enough, 
f|uite  as  patently  contentious  as  in  the  lower  animals.  The 
battle-line  of  every  man  is  measured  by  the  extent  of  his  self- 
hood. The  thug  and  the  pick-pocket  maintain  a  struggle  that 
is  co-extensive  with  their  egos,  the  captain  of  industry,  the 
statesman,  the  leader  of  masses,  the  general  and  the  prophet, 
in  accordance  with  theirs.  As  pain  expresses  itself  in  struggle 
in  proportion  to  its  content  and,  as  the  ego  or  self  is  the  unit 
of  sensitiveness  or  pain  in  every  individual,  it  follows  unerr- 
ingly that  the  struggle  of  everyone  is  exactly  in  proportion  to 
the  ego  or  unit  of  sensitiveness  that  is  in  him. 

6.    The  Senses. 

Self  is  the  unit  of  sensitiveness.  The  human  self,  how- 
ever, contains  raanv  avenues  thru  w^hich  it  receives  sensation 
and  which  color,  intensify  or  qualify  sensation.  These  ave- 
nues or  senses  are  the  sense  of  hearing,  tasting,  smelling, 
seeing  and  the  sense  of  touch  or  contact.  Perhaps  there  is 
one  or  more  senses  which  we  have  not  yet  succeeded  in  dis- 


32  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

tinguishing,  but  this  is  not  pertinent  at  present.  The  interest- 
ing question  that  suggests  itself  to  me  is,  "What  is  the  true 
relation  between  the  senses  and  sensitiveness  in  general? 

I  will  hazard  a  guess  that  is  not  altogether  a  guess,  and 
say  that  the  senses  are  the  protean  guises  of  sensitiveness  in 
general,  since  there  can  be  no  sensitiveness  without  constant 
variety  in  kind  or  degree  (in  the  last  analysis,  all  variety  is 
variety  of  degree).  I  strongly  suspect  that  all  the  senses 
simply  represent  degrees  of  sensitiveness  to  phenomena.  All 
the  senses  have  one  uniform  quality — the  sense  of  contact  or 
"touch."  Now  what  is  the  difference  whether  we  say  that 
the  sense  of  touch  is  in  our  fingers,  our  nose,  our  eyes,  our 
tongue  or  our  ears  1  If  we  substitute  the  word  '  *  contact ' '  for 
*' touch"  we  can  say  that  all  the  senses  have  the  same  sense 
but  each  has  a  special  quality  of  sensitiveness  adapted  to 
register  our  contact  with  given  objects.  I  do  not  pretend  to 
know  which  of  the  senses  represent  the  greatest  degree  of 
sensitiveness.  There  are  things  which  can  be  seen  at  a  great 
distance,  that  is,  which  contact  on  the  retina  of  the  eye  but 
which  furnish  no  contact  with  the  sense  of  hearing,  taste, 
smell  or  ordinary  sense  of  touch.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
are  things  which  do  not  register  on  our  sight  which  we  can 
smell;  and  so  on,  right  along  the  line. 

In  short,  then,  the  senses  are  a  few  of  the  extensions  or 
conduits,  as  it  were,  of  sensitiveness  in  general  with  special 
properties  of  demarcation  and  registration. 

7.    Memory. 

When  a  given  experience  has  made  an  impression  some- 
where on  our  consciousness,  the  affected  part  of  our  conscious- 
ness remains  sensitive  in  varying  degrees  depending  upon  the 
intensity  or  number  of  identical  experiences.  This  sensitive- 
ness of  our  consciousness  to  what  has  happened  is  what  we 
call  memory  or  retentiveness.  Memory  or  resensitization 
comes  to  us  when  the  sensitive  spots  in  our  consciousness  are 
revivified  by  suggestions  or  experiences  more  or  less  like  those 
which  have  alreadv  affected  us. 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  STRUGGLE      33 

8.  Intuition. 

Now  if  memory  is  the  state  of  sensitiveness  in  spots  of 
our  consciousness  after  the  occurrence  of  experiences,  intui- 
tion is  the  ability  to  remember  or  resensitize  past  experiences, 
analogize  or  compare  with  other  experiences  and  draw  con- 
clusions or  anticipations.  In  short,  intuition  is  the  ability  to 
re-sensitize  or  remember,  compare  and  anticipate. 

Intuition  is  probably  the  oldest  of  purely  human  faculties 
as  well  as  the  most  wonderful  intellectual  property  in  man. 
It  appears  to  be  present  also  in  animals  in  some  degree. 
Although  intuition  is  an  intellectual  attribute,  it  operates 
unconsciously  like  the  act  of  breathing. 

9.  Reason. 

Reason  is  intuition  made  conscious.  Reason  is  the  latest 
of  man's  intellectual  acquirements  and,  at  present,  is  very 
imperfect,  being,  in  fact,  comparable  to  a  toy  which  works  for 
a  while  and  breaks  down  frequently,  especially  where  it  seems 
to  be  needed  most.  Reason's  usefulness  and  functions  have 
been  very  much  exaggerated  and  over-rated.  The  fact  is  that 
our  life  is  organized  and  lived,  not  according  to  our  reason, 
but  according  to  our  intuition.  This  is  because,  despite  the 
fulminations  of  rationalists  and  utilitarians,  we  have  very 
little  confidence  in  reason  for  most  purposes.  Some  of  us 
imagine  that  we  accomplish  wonders  with  our  reason,  but 
the  truth  is  that  it  is  of  service  only  in  checking  up  our 
intuition.  Intuition  need  only  justify  itself  by  result.  But 
reason  must  both  explain  and  justify  itself  and  for  this  reason 
it  can  only  traverse  a  beaten  track.  Despite  all  that  is  claimed 
for  it,  reason  has  no  creative  power  whatever  because  it  can- 
not anticipate.  All  invention  is  the  product  of  intuition. 
Despite  reason's  pretensions  all  it  has  attained  to  is  the 
humble  though  useful  office  of  applying  the  plumb-line  to  the 
anticipations  of  intuition. 

I  said  that  reason  is  intuition  made  conscious.  Perhaps 
I  should  say  reason  is  the  attempt  to  make  intuition  conscious, 
because  reason  cannot  keep  pace  with  intuition.  Intuition  is 
capable  of  seizing  hold  of  innumerable  factors  and  relations 


34  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

and  wielding  them  before  reason  can  even  realize  what  has 
been  done.  Let  the  great  chemist,  biologist  and  mathema- 
tician introspect  a  little  and  he  will  find  that  his  formula, 
statistical  record  or  proof  was  preceded  by  one  little  sacred 
moment  of  intuition  in  which  his  whole  discovery  was  first 
conceived. 

The  early  Greeks  made  a  great  ado  about  the  efficacy 
of  reason  in  human  relations  and  institutions  but  their  ratioci- 
nations were  neither  regarded  by  themselves  nor  by  the  world 
at  large.  Instead,  the  world  embraced  the  doctrine  of  an 
obscure  people  whose  teachings  were  not  the  creation  of 
reason  but  of  intuition  born  of  an  intense  experience  of  pain 
and  struggle.  To-day,  the  relics  of  Greek  rationalism  are  of 
value,  chiefly,  as  mental  exercises. 

10.  Instincts  or  Animal  Propensities. 

When  we  refer  to  the  instinct  of  an  animal,  we  mean 
an  inherited  sensitiveness  to  a  given  experience  resulting  in 
an  unexplained  yet  responsive  act.  Instinct  is  a  primitive  form 
of  intuition.  Instinct  stands  in  the  same  chronological  relation 
to  intuition  as  intuition  does  to  reason.  Instinct,  like  intuition, 
is  based  upon  memory;  but,  unlike  intuition,  it  is  vitalized, 
not  through  the  ability  to  compare  and  anticipate,  but  through 
sensitiveness  intense  enough  to  result  in  premonition  but  not 
sufficiently  accentuated  to  result  in  the  higher  state  of  sensi- 
tiveness culminating  in  anticipation.  Instinct  is  the  oldest 
intellectual  attribute  and,  next  to  memory  and  sensitiveness 
itself,  the  most  rudimentary  of  faculties.  Lacking  the 
faculties  of  comparison  and  anticipation,  which  are  attributes 
of  intuition,  creatures  living  by  instinct  alone  have  naturally 
proven  no  match  to  those  who  have  attained  to  intuition. 

11.  Sensitiveness,  Consciousness  and  Will. 

Sensitiveness,  consciousness  and  will  are  degrees  of  the 
same  thing  in  an  ascending  scale.  Consciousness  is  a  higher 
degree  of  sensitiveness.  It  is  sensitiveness  cognizant  of  itself. 
Will  is  the  crystallization  of  consciousness  and  is,  therefore, 
the  highest  manifestation  of  sensitiveness.    Be  it  understood 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  STRUGGLE      35 

that  when  I  say  "will"  I  mean  will  to  struggle,  for  there  is 
no  other  will. 

12.  Imagination. 

What  is  called  flesh  and  spirit  would  be  translated  in  our 
terms  as  less  struggle  and  greater  struggle.  Just  as  spirit  is 
a  more  powerful  emanation  of  the  flesh,  so  spiritual  struggle  is 
a  more  powerful  form  of  struggle  than  physical  struggle.  The 
more  powerful  the  form  of  struggle  the  less  liable  is  it  to  be 
perceived  by  the  senses.  When  a  wheel  turns  slowly  we  can 
see  the  spokes  in  it ;  the  more  swiftly  it  revolves  the  less  likely 
are  we  to  see  them.  Such  is  the  relative  power  of  mind  which 
is  imperceptible  as  compared  to  matter  which  is  perceptible. 
So  imagination  presents  an  invisible  extension  of  ordinary 
struggle  beyond  the  feeble  limits  of  matter. 

13.  Fear. 

Fear  is  the  feeling  engendered  in  us  by  the  sense  of  help- 
lessness or  unpreparedness  to  master  or  struggle  against  an 
impending  pain,  I  have  heard  of  persons  who  were  fearless 
but  I  do  not  believe  any  exist.  As  our  capacity  to  struggle  is 
unevenly  distributed,  however,  it  is  natural  for  certain  situa- 
tions to  imbue  some  people  with  more  fear  than  others  and 
some  with  none  at  all,  in  proportion  to  the  consciousness  of 
strength  we  can  summon  to  overcome  the  given  diflBculty. 

14.  The  Terror  of  Death. 

It  may  be  difficult  to  hold  to  the  idea  but  it  is  none  the 
less  true  that  pain  is  constantly  with  us.  On  this  account,  in 
order  to  keep  in  good  spirit,  we  have  to  constantly  fortify 
ourselves  with  the  feeling  that  the  possibilities  of  struggle  are 
always  with  us.  Every  man  of  us,  when  he  is  not  struggling, 
is  telling  himself  that  he  is  still  good  for  a  fight.  It  is  thus 
that  he  retains  faith  in  himself.  Why  we  have  such  a  terror 
of  death — for  there  is  no  use  denying  it,  we  are  afraid  of 
death — is  because  death  presents  to  our  mind  a  condition  of 
helplessness  or  inability  to  struggle  from  pain.    It  is  useless 


36  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

for  us  to  tell  ourselves  that  pain  cannot  survive  death.  Try- 
as  we  will,  we  cannot  shake  off  the  consciousness  that  life 
provides  us  with  the  weapons  with  which  to  struggle  from 
pain,  whereas  death  delivers  us  while  still  pain-conscious  into 
the  hands  of  the  enemy — Helplessness  or  Inability  to  Struggle 
— which  is  the  greatest  evil  known  to  man.  The  reflection 
that  we  will  probably  not  carry  our  pain-consciousness  into 
the  halls  of  death  is  merely  a  speculation  and  has  little  power 
over  healthy  beings  who  are  able  to  maintain  a  good  propor- 
tion between  their  pain  and  their  struggle-from-pain.  Inva- 
lids, persons  suffering  from  great  bodily  or  mental  pain  whom 
life  has  not  vouchsafed  relief  through  proportionate  struggle, 
i.  e.,  who  are  helpless  in  the  face  of  pain,  can  naturally  look 
upon  death  with  a  greater  degree  of  equinimity  if  not  of 
longing,  as  the  final  corrective  of  their  disproportionate  exist- 
ence, as  the  only  act  of  struggle,  in  fact,  that  remains  to  them. 
But  the  strong  can  be  no  lovers  of  death.  The  strong 
will  willingly  accept  death  in  only  one  eventuality — as  a 
necessary  incident  of  a  great  struggle.  As  the  fear  of  death  is 
born  of  the  fundamental  love  of  struggle  so,  also,  it  disappears 
because  of  the  love  of  struggle.  Death  does  not  weigh  much 
in  the  balance  with  love  of  struggle.  This  is  simply  another 
way  of  re-stating  what  we  have  already  found  to  be  true, 
namely,  that  love  of  life  or  the  ''will  to  live"  is  not  a  uni- 
versal law  and  is  wholly  subordinate  to  the  law  of  struggle. 
So  the  secret  yearnings  of  even  a  child  is  to  die,  if  die  he  must, 
fighting  gloriously.  There  is  nothing  better  or  truer  than 
this  childish  imagining  in  all  the  books  of  wisdom. 

15.  The  Pain  of  Disease. 

There  are  many  who  imagine  that  pain  is  synonymous 
with  disease.  But  pain  is  always  with  us.  Disease  is  simply 
an  acute  instance  of  inability  to  translate  pain  into  its  requi- 
site struggle;  it  is,  therefore,  an  interference  with  the  normal 
processes  of  pain. 

16.  Hate. 

Hate  is  the  feeling  engendered  in  us  by  anybody  who, 
passively  or  actively,  has  the  effect  of  impeding  our  struggle. 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  STRUGGLE      37 

In  relation  to  the  imaginary  sketch  of  the  ego  already  referred 
to,  hate  would  represent  a  contraction  of  the  circle  of  selfhood 
to  exclude  identity  or  sympathy  with  the  person  or  persons 
hated.  If  a  person  has  incurred  our  enmity,  therefore,  it 
means  that  we  are  injured  to  the  extent  that,  in  relation  to 
our  enemy,  at  least,  the  radius  of  our  selfhood  has  been 
delimited  and  interrupted  in  its  sympathies  or  identity  with 
the  world. 

17.  Love. 

Love  is  the  feeling  of  or  sense  of  identity  with  the  pain 
of  another.  It  follows  that  there  can  be  no  love  of  another 
without  knowledge  of  the  other,  knowledge  of  the  other's 
pain;  also,  there  can  be  no  knowledge  without  sensitiveness. 
Thus,  to  demand  of  a  barbarous,  ignorant  and  unfeeling  world 
to  ''love  one  another"  is  not  immediately  realizable.  The 
world  has  first  to  become  sensitive  to  pain,  from  whence 
proceeds  knowledge  or  intimacy  and  then  only,  love. 

Love  is  by  no  means  incompatible  with  struggle.  Noth- 
ing is  incompatible  with  struggle  except  surrender.  We  may 
even  struggle  with  him  whom  we  love;  but  love  compels  us 
to  extend  our  battle-line  and  fight  for  wider  interests. 

There  never  was  a  great  lover  who  was  not  also  a  cor 
respondingly  great  fighter  in  proportion  to  his  opportunities. 
I  am  not  now  alluding  only  to  the  prophets  and  saviours  of 
mankind.  I  am  referring  also  to  the  much-abused  Hannibals 
and  Napoleons  of  the  world.  Their  battle-lines  were  not  as 
far-reaching  as  those  of  the  prophets,  but  they  could  not  have 
marshalled  vast  armies  nor  carried  state-responsibilities  upon 
their  shoulders,  if  they  were  not  essentially  devoted  men 
whose  self-love  was  co-extensive  to  a  degree  with  the  interests 
of  the  millions  under  their  wing. 

18.  Sleep. 

I  have  often  wondered  as  to  the  nature  of  sleep  and  its 
relation  to  consciousness,  until  it  occurred  to  me  that  sleep 
was  always  preceded  by  a  state  of  exhaustion  or,  at  least, 
customarily,  by  the  period  when  exhaustion  was  due  to  occur. 
The  nature  of  sleep  then  became  reasonably  clear. 


38  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

As  I  have  already  pointed  out,  our  normal  condition  is  the 
state  of  pain  or  sensitiveness.  In  other  words,  consciousness 
is  the  state  of  extreme  sensitiveness.  This  extreme  sensitive- 
ness, whether  we  are  aware  of  it  or  not,  is  maintained  only 
with  great  effort.  When  we  are  exhausted,  our  sensitive  fac- 
ulties relapse  into  a  kind  of  apathy  and  from  thence  the  super- 
lative degree  of  sensitiveness  is  still  further  reduced  and  falls 
away  into  that  blurred  state  of  sensitiveness  known  as  sleep. 
It  is  probable  that  sleep  is  an  outgrown  state  of  consciousness 
like  the  consciousness  of  the  sensitive  plant.  In  other  words, 
sleep  is  a  feebler  degree  of  consciousness  to  which  we  revert  in 
periods  of  exhaustion. 

The  same  thing  applies  to  all  degrees  of  semi-conscious- 
ness. Even  in  our  waking  hours,  every  individual  is  capable 
of  several  degrees  of  concentration,  that  is  to  say,  of  con- 
sciousness. The  same  thing  is  true  of  lower  stages  of  con- 
sciousness in  which  we  revert  to  discarded  levels  of  intelli- 
gence which  once  marked  our  maximum  development. 

What  I  cannot  fathom,  however,  is  how  it  can  be  main- 
tained that  a  person  while  in  a  lower  state  of  consciousness 
can  discover  and  convey  information  that  he  could  by  no 
means  derive  in  his  waking  hours,  i.  e.,  when  he  is  in  posses- 
sion of  full  consciousness  and  has  his  maximum  powers  of 
concentration.  If  my  analysis  is  not  a  mistaken  one,  here  is 
an  instance  where  we  ask  of  a  lower  order  of  sensitiveness  or 
consciousness  to  do  that  which  we  find  difficult  for  superla- 
tive sensitiveness.  If  my  analysis  is  correct,  the  only  expla- 
nation is  that  the  ''mediums"  relied  upon  are  untrustworthy 
or,  as  I  am  inclined  to  think,  that  their  revelations  are  no 
more  credible  than  the  replies  which  anyone  can  elicit  from 
persons  given  to  talking  in  their  sleep.  The  verbal  jangles 
of  persons  in  a  semi-conscious  condition  cannot  be  more 
responsible.  Persons  in  a  semi-conscious  state  may  be  able 
to  reply  cogently  to  a  certain  extent.  They  may,  conceivably, 
relate  experiences  that  have  originated  in  or  penetrated  to 
their  lower  consciousness.  But  to  expect  them  to  transcend 
the  possibilities  of  consciousness,  predict  the  future  and  hold 
converse  with  people  in  distant  places,  is  over-shooting  the 
inark  somewhat.  It  would  be  much  more  plausible  to  expect 
such  feats  from  the  conscious  state. 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  STRUGGLE      39 

19.  Dreams. 

It  has  been  said  that  dreams  represent  the  fulfillment  of 
the  unsatisfied  longings  of  our  waking  hours.  This  may  hap- 
pen occasionally  but  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  the  rule.  Very 
frequently  quite  the  opposite  occurs,  and  our  dream-state  often 
presents  horrors  and  grotesqueries  which  have  the  most 
adventitious  relations  to  the  thoughts  and  wishes  of  our  wak- 
ing hours. 

It  can  hardly  be  denied,  however,  that  the  wishes,  deter- 
minations, experiences  and  impressions  of  our  waking  hours 
do  have  some  relation  and  are  tangled  up  with  the  imaginings 
of  our  dream-state.  It  is  impossible  to  predicate  any  set  rule 
for  our  dream-experiences  because  our  will-power  is  at  a  low 
ebb  at  such  times,  our  sense  of  discrimination  weak  and  our 
powers  of  co-ordination  disintegrated,  so  that  the  thoughts  of 
the  day  which  remain  with  us  during  sleep  will  result  in  the 
most  haphazard  effects.  We  are,  at  such  times,  like  a  sensitive 
harp  played  upon  by  the  winds  of  chance. 

There  is  one  permeating  thread  which  runs  thru  all 
dreams  with  unchanging  consistency,  however,  and  that  is 
the  will  to  struggle.  In  the  dream-state,  as  in  what  we  call 
actuality,  our  perspective  may  be  all  wrong,  our  visions  and 
sense  of  relations  distorted,  our  anticipations  exaggerated,  our 
plans  absurd  and  our  hopes  and  wishes  sinful  or  grotesque 
in  the  light  of  day,  but  the  impulse  to  struggle  remains  true 
and  undeviating.  All  the  stray  impressions  that  remain  with 
us  and  are  compounded  in  dreams  are  tossed  around  by  our 
struggle-instinct  like  leaves  in  a  gale. 

20.  Telepathy. 

Although  I  do  not  believe  that  super-conscious  percep- 
tions are  attainable  thru  subconscious  mediums,  I  do  believe 
that  it  is  not  impossible  for  us  to  evolve  a  method  of  commu- 
nication, if  we  have  not  already  attained  to  it,  by  mental 
suggestion;  that  is,  by  extreme  mental  concentration  evolved 
from  a  greater  degree  of  intellectual  sensitiveness  than  is  yet 
prevalent  among  men.  After  all,  what  is  speech  and  sign 
language  except  emotion  made  perceptible  through  increased 
sensitiveness  ? 


40  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

21.  Pleasure. 

Listen  to  the  salubrious  phrases  of  the  Christian  Scien- 
tists, the  stentorian  dogmas  of  the  Socialists  and  the  eloquent 
nonsense  of  the  full  bloom  of  latter-day  rhapsodists  and  one 
must  come  to  the  conclusion  that  happiness  can  be  had  for  the 
asking  and  that  pain  is  a  demon  who  can  be  exorcised  with 
the  formula  of  economic  sufficiency  and  rhapsody,  if  we  were 
only  more  perfect.  In  my  unregenerate  heart,  however,  I 
cannot  believe  this  any  more  than  I  could  bring  myself  to 
believe  the  statement  of  a  great  Russian  rhapsodist  who  said 
that  mankind  would  be  happy  indeed  if  it  were  not  for  the 
women. 

Still,  though  we  must  believe  in  pain  and  struggle  as 
the  eternal  and  unavoidable  law  of  life,  we  may  yet  reserve 
a  place  for  joy,  pleasure  and  re-current  measures  of  happiness. 

Pleasure  is  the  sensation  we  experience  when  some  pain 
is  fulfilled  or  determined  in  some  struggle.  Thus,  the  pain  of 
hunger  is  fulfilled  in  the  struggle  called  eating;  the  pain  of 
thirst  in  drinking;  the  pain  of  love  in  mating;  the  pain  in  all 
forms  of  longing  whatever  is  fulfilled  in  complementary  forms 
of  struggle.  But  unless  we  know  the  pain  of  hunger  we  cannot 
know  the  pleasure  of  eating;  hence,  if  our  hunger  is  but  little, 
our  pleasure  in  eating  will  be  correspondingly  less. 

Thus  all  forms  of  pleasure  must  be  in  proportion  to  our 
pain.  To  demand  pleasure  of  life  without  acknowledging  pain 
as  a  prerequisite  is  to  demand  a  logical  absurdity.  Pleasure, 
then,  is  the  measure  of  our  pain  as  expressed  in  struggle. 

Small  pain,  such  as  the  wish  of  a  child  for  a  toy,  can  only 
be  reflected  in  the  small  pleasure  or  limited  struggle  incident 
to  his  getting  the  toy.  The  low  pain  of  an  adult  can  be 
gratified  in  a  low  form  of  struggle.  But  great  pain,  the  pain 
of  great  longings,  calls  for  great  struggle  or  achievement 
which  is  reflected  in  a  form  of  pleasure  of  corresponding  mag- 
nitude experienced  by  the  world's  great  adventurers. 

22.  Happiness. 

When  we  think  of  happiness,  therefore,  we  must  think 
of  a  succession  of  longings  always  expressed — if  we  are  for- 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  STRUGGLE      41 

tunate — in  corresponding  struggles  whence  all  pleasure  and 
happiness  proceed.  To  turn  longing  into  doing  is  to  be  happy; 
and,  from  the  very  nature  of  these  processes,  happiness  cannot 
be  otherwise  than  transitory. 

23.  Joy. 

I  am  not  sure  that  joy  calls  for  any  special  definition. 
But  if  it  does,  I  should  say  that  joy  is  the  fulfillment  either 
of  a  pain  of  which  we  are  not  conscious  at  the  moment,  or 
brings  an  unexpected  fulfillment  of  a  pain  of  which  we  are 
conscious. 

24.  Humor. 

There  is  a  background  of  seriousness,  of  pain,  in  fact,  to 
every  joke  and  witticism.  Why  are  we  so  much  amused  by 
human  foibles,  miscarriages  and  mistakes?  Because  every 
foible,  miscarriage  and  mistake  is  a  caricature  of  deadly 
earnestness.  The  humorous  element  in  the  staggering  of  the 
drunkard  is  that  he  is  really  trying  his  best  to  walk  straight 
and  with  becoming  dignity  and  his  performance  is  so  wide  of 
his  pretensions.  The  same  general  principle  applies  to  the 
earnest  singer  with  the  cracked  voice,  the  dancer  whose  steps 
are  cumbersome,  the  actor  whose  deficiencies  break  thru  his 
disguise,  the  speaker  who  cannot  hide  his  vanity,  the  foreigner 
striving  to  speak  a  strange  language  like  a  native,  the  novice 
trying  to  swim,  etc.,  etc.,  thru  all  the  gamut  of  humorous  inci- 
dent. In  fact,  if  we  have  a  mind  to  always  contrast  effort 
with  achievement,  humor  is  as  wide  as  the  cosmos.  But  there 
are  efforts  which  touch  our  own  too  closely  for  us  to  be  able 
to  enjoy  the  humor  of  their  disproportionate  achievement. 
For,  after  all,  humor  is  the  feint  at  pain. 

25.  Pride,  Vanity  and  the  Appetites. 

As  we  all  feel  charged  with  our  struggle-mission,  it  is 
natural  for  us  to  carry  ourselves  proudly  and,  however  humbly 
we  may  intend  to  demean  ourselves,  we  by  no  means  succeed 
in  shaking  off  our  pride.  In  our  hearts  we  know  ourselves 
to  be  fighters;  how  then  can  we  rid  ourselves  of  pride! 


42  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

When  the  Lord  made  strugglers  of  us  He  mixed  with 
our  clay  a  measure  of  pride  and  vanity.  It  is  both  foolish  and 
impossible  for  us  to  attempt  to  dispossess  ourselves  of  these 
essential  constituents.  On  the  other  hand,  our  pride  and 
vanity  must  bear  some  proportion  to  the  thing  of  which  we 
are  proud  or  vain.  On  this  account,  the  prouder  we  are  the 
less  perceptible  our  pride  is  apt  to  be  to  the  undiscerning. 

As  for  our  appetites  and  our  ''lusts"  even,  what  a  good 
laugh  they  ought  to  have  at  the  expense  of  the  ascetic  of  the 
west  and  the  doctrinaire  mystic  of  the  east!  For  how  can  we 
attain  understanding  save  through  the  intimate  knowledge  of 
life  imparted  to  us  by  our  basic  appetites  which  are  part  of 
our  pain-consciousness? 

Those  who  advocate  the  eradication  of  human  pride  and 
the  appetites  advocate  suicide-in-life  which  is  an  impossi- 
bility. 

26.    The  Sense  of  Beauty. 

Who  has  not  paused  at  one  time  or  another  to  see  a  man 
catch  and  board  a  car?  Nay,  we  did  not  turn  our  eyes  away 
until  we  saw  the  runner  on  the  step ;  then  were  we  satisfied  and 
turned  to  other  things,  for  we  like  to  see  the  fulfillment  of  all 
efforts — provided,  of  course,  they  are  not  in  conflict  with  our 
own.  I  confess,  I  never  saw  a  pick-pocket  beset  by  a  mob  or 
the  police,  but  I  had  a  secret  wish  that  he  might  get  away; 
and,  when  I  was  a  boy,  I  followed  the  exploits  of  the  treasure- 
pilfering  pirates  of  my  readings  with  unholy  enthusiasm. 
This  sympathy  is  not  altogether  removed  from  the  fond  sym- 
pathy of  parents  watching  their  infant  child  in  its  first  efforts 
to  walk. 

This  principle — the  fulfillment  of  patent  effort  or  desire 
— is  the  same  that  applies  in  art  and  constitutes  what  we 
recognize  as  beauty.  I  do  not  know  what  desire  or  suggestion 
of  pain  is  represented  by  a  straight  line,  a  curve,  an  angle, 
the  color  red,  a  note  in  music  or  one  of  the  many  gestures 
employed  in  the  histrionic  art.  It  rests  with  others  to  dis- 
cover this  if  it  remains  undiscovered.  But  I  do  know  that  some 
suggestion  of  pain  is  inherent  in  the  straight  line,  the  curve, 
the  angle,  the  color,  musical  note  and  gesture  and,  unconsci- 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  STRUGGLE      43 

ously,  we  are  affected  by  them  when  we  meet  them  and  we 
wish  to  see  them  complemented  or  fulfilled  according  to  their 
kind.  It  requires  no  argument  to  prove  that  the  unfinished 
song,  the  damaged  picture,  the  broken  statue,  the  ruined 
structure,  the  interrupted  gesture,  affect  us  disagreeably  even 
as  the  morsel  of  food  dashed  out  of  our  hand.  They  represent 
non-fulfillment,  ineffectual  desire.  We  have  but  to  stretch 
our  imagination  a  little  bit  further  to  see  that  the  same  prin- 
ciple applies  when  we  are  confronted  by  an  unrelieving  line, 
an  inappropriate  angle,  an  inharmonious  color  combination, 
a  jarring  note  or  chord,  an  awkward  gesture.  A  bad  work 
of  art  represents  so  many  suggestions  of  pain  which  have  not 
been  fulfilled.  This  is  what  we  mean  by  such  expressions  as 
lack  of  balance,  discords,  poor  technique,  clashing  color 
schemes  and  designs,  gracelessness,  failures  of  all  kinds. 

It  cannot  be  repeated  too  often  that  we  live  in  a  condition 
of  pain.  Every  individual  carries  tons  upon  his  shoulders, 
physically  as  well  as  spiritually.  Every  thing  we  do  in  this 
world  is  to  relieve  us  or  struggle  from  pain.  Even  our  laugh- 
ter and  enjoyment  have  reference  to  ever-present  pain.  It 
must  not  surprise  us,  therefore,  that  every  work  of  art  and 
every  component  thereof  carries  out  the  suggestion  of  pain 
and  the  attempted  fulfillment  thereof.  Every  work  of  art, 
therefore,  like  life  itself,  is  a  striving  for  balance  between 
pain  and  fulfillment  or  struggle.  A  great  work  of  art,  like 
a  great  man,  is  an  embodiment  of  a  larger  consciousness  of 
pain  complemented  by  a  larger  measure  of  fulfillment  or 
struggle.  This  rule  applies  to  the  arch,  the  statue,  the  quiet 
but  unmistakable  suggestiveness  of  the  portrait  or  landscape 
painting  as  well  as  to  the  literary  idyl,  epic  or  the  subtle 
sj^mphony. 

Beauty,  then,  is  equipoise — equipoise  of  suggestion  and 
fulfillment,  longing  and  doing,  effort  and  accomplishment, 
pain  and  struggle.  This  is  what  the  artist  intuitively  per- 
ceives to  be  harmony,  proportion,  consonance,  grace;  and,  it 
is  because  we  recognize  that  these  qualities  are  the  embodi- 
ment of  all  that  we  look  for  in  life  under  other  names  that  we 
derive  our  enjoyment  of  art. 

The  question  naturally  arises:  What,  then,  is  the  differ- 
ence between  great  art  and  lesser  art,  since  all  art  must  have 


44  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

pain-suggestion  and  fulfillment  in  equipoise?  We  have  only 
to  consult  our  individual  experiences  to  find  that  we  recog- 
nize as  greater  than  another  that  artist  who  has  put  more 
of  the  pain  and  struggle  of  the  world  into  his  work  without 
doing  violence  to  the  demands  of  equipoise  or  proportion. 
This  is  the  whole  difference  between  a  perfect  little  bisque 
doll  and  the  statue  of  the  Venus  of  Milo,  or,  say,  Rodin's 
''Thinker;"  between  Corneille's  ''Le  Cid"  and  ** Hamlet,"  or 
"Macbeth."  This  also  is  the  difference  between  the  art  of 
the  Greeks  and  the  art  of  the  Hebrews  as  evidenced  by  the 
Bible  which  is  the  true  precursor  of  modern  art. 

Modern  art  is  deeper  in  content,  more  ascetic,  more 
charged  with  the  cumulative  pain  and  struggle  of  the 
world,  more  sensitive  and  complicated  in  its  color  schemes, 
its  sound  pulsations  and  its  gestures.  On  this  account, 
its  equipoise  of  pain-suggestion  and  pain-fulfillment  or 
harmony,  as  we  call  it,  is  more  difficult  of  attainment.  Our 
susceptibilities  have  undergone  a  considerable  change  since 
the  time  when  Telemachus,  struggling  to  find  a  word  expres- 
sive of  the  dishonor  done  to  his  father's  house  by  the  suitors 
of  Penelope,  could  only  make  the  simple  plaint  that  they  were 
wasting  his  father's  substance.  We  have  ceased  to  think 
and  feel  as  did  the  Greeks  of  Homer's  time.  This  difference 
was  becoming  manifest  even  in  the  art  of  the  Romans,  who 
lived  more  intensely  than  the  Greeks.  But  the  Hebrew  influ- 
ence widened  the  breach  most  of  all. 


CHAPTER  m. 
STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY 
1.   Morality  in  Man  and  Beast. 

THE  compass  of  the  ego  grows  with  every  experience  of 
pain;  that  is,  its  sympathetic  perception  is  thus  broad- 
ened and  intensified.  From  these  multiplied  experi- 
ences of  pain-sympathies,  the  intensified  feelings  created  by 
them  and  the  ever-insistent  will  to  struggle  from  them,  flow 
all  the  canons  of  pure  morality  in  beast  and  man. 

Pain  is  the  universal  substance  which  is  given  and  the 
Will  to  Struggle  is  its  concomitant.  Thus,  the  struggle,  say,  of 
a  herd  of  elephants  against  a  common  enemy  is  predicated 
upon  the  same  fundamental  law  of  morality  as  the  resistance 
of  the  Allies  at  the  Marne,  and  the  feeling  of  the  disgrace  of 
surrender  has  its  roots  in  the  same  universal  recognition  of 
the  law  of  struggle.  Indeed,  the  lower  animals  never  sur- 
render. As  a  matter  of  fact,  nobody  surrenders.  One  is  first 
overcome  and  the  formal  act  of  surrender  is  a  recognition  of 
the  fact  and  a  manoeuvre  to  evade  avoidable  punishment. 

Where,  then,  lies  the  difference  between  the  morality  of 
man  and  beast!  The  difference  is  in  degree.  The  struggle 
of  man  is  greater,  more  continuous,  more  embracing,  because 
his  sympathies  and  his  appetites  are  greater,  i.  e.,  he  has 
greater  experiences  of  pain.  Morality  in  man  and  beast,  then, 
flow  from  the  degree  of  their  responsiveness  to  pain  or 
sensitive  experience. 

We  unconsciously  fall  into  the  habit  of  regarding  the 
savage  beasts,  the  lion,  tiger,  snake,  etc.,  as  supremely  formi- 
dable. As  a  matter  of  fact,  man  is  the  most  formidable  animal. 
He  is  the  veritable  king  of  beasts  and  rules  them. 

Even  animals  represent  a  high  order  of  struggle  in  that 
they  protect  their  young  and,  to  this  extent,  show  an  enlarged 
ego.  This  would  apply  still  more  to  the  animals  that  have 
the  herd  instinct,  such  as  the  elephant.  As  instances  of  crea- 
tures having  a  contracted  or  small  ego  with  commensurately 

45 


46  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

limited  intelligence  or  capacity  to  struggle,  I  would  mention 
all  those  fowl  and  fish  that  are  wont  to  eat  their  young.  We 
may  even  go  further  and  say  that  deep  experience  of  pain 
carries  with  it  the  responsibility  for  posterity  as  instanced 
by  prophets,  patriots  and  humanitarians.  Conversely,  a  lim- 
ited experience  of  pain  in  a  race  will  carry  with  it  a  lack 
of  responsibility  for  kind  as  in  the  case  of  the  cannibal. 

2.    The  Origin  of  Law. 

It  is  idle  to  speculate  which  was  the  first  conscious  law 
and  whether  that  law  was  enforced  through  economic  neces- 
sity or  through  the  growth  of  humanitarian  feeling,  or  as  I 
would  call  it,  the  increased  standard  of  struggle.  I  believe 
too  much  has  been  lately  ascribed  to  economic  necessity  and 
too  little  to  psychological  necessity.  Certainly,  before  we 
can  speak  of  economic  necessity  for  primitive  races  there 
must  be  in  them  an  appreciation  of  economic  necessity  which 
could  only  come  through  an  increased  sensitiveness  in  obser- 
vation and  experience  or  suffering. 

Thus,  it  is  safe  to  surmise  that  when  a  sentiment  as 
to  a  given  act  or  omission  attained  unanimity  among  our 
primitive  forefathers,  it  gave  rise  to  a  custom  at  first,  and  then 
to  a  more  or  less  vigorously  observed  law. 

Once  a  law  was  accepted  and  established,  justice  required 
that  all  act  in  accordance  with  it,  because,  to  violate  it  was 
to  lower  the  standard  of  struggle  for  some  but  not  for  all, 
thus  giving  an  undue  advantage  to  some  over  others. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  Pain-Struggle,  however,  the 
trend  of  all  laws  is  to  foster  the  small  struggler  and  increase 
his  capacity  for  effort  and  to  place  larger  burdens  upon  the 
greater  struggler  so  as  by  no  means  to  allow  him  to  batten 
on  his  gains. 

Religion  has  also  stepped  in  and  taken  a  hand  in  the 
formation  of  the  law,  so  that  to-day  the  law  of  the  land  is 
compounded  of  the  natural  chivalry  of  struggle  (which  pro- 
hibits one  from  taking  an  obviously  preponderant  advantage 
over  his   antagonist)    and  of  Religion    (whose  tendency  is 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  47 

toward  eliminating  inter-human  conflict  as  an  element  of 
universal  conflict). 

The  chivalry  of  struggle  enjoins  us  not  to  beg,  not  to 
steal,  to  fight  bravely,  not  to  take  our  enemy  unawares,  to 
champion  the  weak  against  the  strong,  etc.  In  short,  the 
natural  chivalry  of  struggle — which  is  a  development  of 
struggle — enjoins  us  to  do  all  those  things  in  inter-human 
conflict  which  will  tend  to  observe  the  balance  of  forces  so  as 
to  render  a  **fair"  fight  possible.  In  fact,  all  the  fantastic 
** codes  of  honor"  are  an  outgrowth  of  the  natural  chivalry  of 
struggle  as  developed  in  the  human  fighter. 

Religion  adopts  and  makes  the  most  of  certain  of  the 
tenets  of  natural  chivalry,  such  as  the  injunction  against 
stealing,  against  the  abuse  of  the  weak,  etc.,  but  also  adds 
injunctions  of  its  own,  such  as  the  prohibition  on  bloodshed, 
on  quarreling,  selfishness,  etc.  Religion  goes  even  further 
but  of  this  I  will  not  speak  here.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  it 
makes  the  most  of  those  of  the  virtues  extant  in  the  natural 
chivalry  of  struggle  and  adds  such  others  as  will  tend  to 
eliminate  human  strife  as  an  element  of  struggle.  Our  com- 
mon law  is  a  composite,  therefore,  of  the  chivalry  of  struggle, 
religion  and  also,  of  course,  of  state-craft  or  latter-day  collec- 
tive struggle. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  current  an  impression  in  the  world 
that  the  laws  against  theft,  for  example,  are  intended  for 
the  protection  of  property.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  law  is 
absolutely  unconcerned  as  to  who  has  the  property,  provided 
it  is  acquired  according  to  the  accepted  standard  of  struggle. 
The  laws  against  theft  makes  acquisition  more  difficult.  They 
that  steal  acquire  by  an  easier  method,  notwithstanding  that 
the  method  though  simpler — and  it  is  simpler — may  be  fol- 
lowed by  punishment.  If  stealing  were  universal,  it  would 
be  no  crime  and  no  wrong.  In  fact,  it  would  be  a  virtue. 
The  same  with  murder.  It  is  easier  to  commit  murder  than 
to  live  at  peace,  which  is  a  very  drawn  out  and  complicated 
undertaking  requiring  great  tact  and  self-control.  It  is  easier 
to  propagate  and  abandon  than  it  is  to  raise  families.  It  is 
easier  to  neglect  than  to  provide.  In  short,  the  tendency  of 
all  laws  is  to  make  things  more  difficult  even  though  the 
citizen  habitually  imagines  that  every  statute  added  to  the 


48  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

Code  lightens  his  burdens.  We  are  so  used  to  living  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law  that  to  be  *  *  law-abiding ' '  has  become  almost 
a  life-habit  with  us  and  we  imagine  that  the  law  was  made  for 
our  comfort.  Tho  they  tend  to  keep  us  fit  for  struggle,  laws 
are,  in  their  nature,  prohibitions.  They  compel  high  standards, 
thus  taking  away  rights  belonging  to  man  in  his  state  of 
nature. 

It  must  be  conceded,  however,  that  the  underlying  tend- 
ency of  laws  is,  also,  to  increase  the  possibilities  of  struggle  to 
the  many.  These  laws  are  grounded  upon  the  wish  to  pre- 
vent the  activities  of  the  great  struggler  from  interfering  with 
the  normal  progress  of  the  efforts  of  the  small  struggler. 
The  effect  of  these  laws  is  to  compel  the  great  struggler  to 
extend  his  struggle  on  bigger,  less  conflicting  lines  and  to 
encourage  the  small  struggler  to  struggle — but  by  no  means 
to  eliminate  the  necessity  to  struggle.  In  autocracies  and 
despotisms,  the  aim  and  tendency  of  laws  is  against  the  easy 
and  unfair  standards  of  the  criminal,  it  is  true,  but  also  to 
confirm  the  great  struggler  in  his  advantages. 

Altho  law  affects  to  deal  with  things,  its  true  province  lies 
in  deciding  questions  of  morality.  That  is  why  judge  and 
advocate  unconsciously  assume  such  a  lofty  tone  in  the  sor- 
did disputes  and  criminal  relations  which  come  before  them 
for  review.  They  deal  with  the  great  question  of  comparative 
standards  of  struggle  in  which  monetary  considerations  and 
penalties  are  supposed  to  play  but  a  minor  part  even  though 
the  cupidity  or  ambition  of  interested  parties  operates  to  place 
the  emphasis  elsewhere.  The  real  question  that  comes  before 
the  judge  is:  Did  the  defendant  sink  below  the  recognized 
standard  of  struggle  ?  If  he  did,  then  the  state  will  punish  the 
act  or  omission,  if  it  constitutes  a  crime;  or  if  it  was  a  civil 
infraction,  then  the  plaintiff  will  be  indemnified  at  the 
defendant's  expense  because  of  the  disadvantage  at  which  he 
was  taken  and  the  loss  occasioned  thereby  in  the  particular 
struggle  or  transaction  which  is  the  subject  of  litigation. 

We  are  so  used,  however,  to  living  in  accordance  with  the 
prescribed  law  and  it  is  so  dangerous  to  live  in  conflict  with  it, 
that  we  have  come  to  believe  that  we  live  by  means  of  it. 
Nothing  of  the  sort  is  the  case,  however.  Without  it  we  should 
still  continue  to  live,  although  upon  a  basis  not  familiar  to  us 
at  present.    Some  of  us,  it  is  true,  would  adopt  a  lower,  less 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  49 

elevated  standard  of  struggle  but  a  more  grimly  simple  one; 
others,  as  the  anarchist  contends,  might  rise  above  the  bald 
requirements  of  the  law,  which  last  is  a  subject  for  specu- 
lation, perhaps. 

To  summarize  by  example,  the  law  against  theft  deprives 
me  of  the  right  to  acquire  property  by  stealth.  It  is  true 
that  henceforth  my  neighbor  will  also  be  deprived  of  this 
advantage  and  our  deprivations  will  be  neutralized  to  this 
extent.  Nevertheless  the  immediate  effect  upon  my  struggle 
is  to  drive  it  upon  more  subtle,  more  difficult  lines.  The  same 
thing  applies  to  my  neighbor.  It  was  an  easier  and  simpler 
thing  to  take  a  thing  when  I  wanted  it,  even  at  the  risk  of 
detection,  than  to  serve  the  long  and  tortuous  apprenticeship 
for  it  dictated  by  the  rule  of  honesty.  The  early  Spartans 
thought  that  it  was  legitimate  to  steal  but  disgraceful  to  be 
caught  at  it.  To  be  caught  meant  to  be  defeated,  and  who  does 
not  feel  disgraced  in  defeat  ? 

3.    The  Basis  of  Property-Right. 

Thus,  to  say  that  stealing  is  wrong  per  se  is  incorrect 
unless  we  have  in  mind  a  community  wherein  the  rule  is 
general  and  property  is  not  so  acquired.  But  where  stealing 
is  the  generally  recognized  practice,  it  should  convey  a  per- 
fectly good  title;  and  it  has  done  so.  To  impugn  titles 
acquired  by  theft  and  violence  in  an  age  when  these  were  the 
recognized  methods  of  obtaining  title  is  just  as  absurd  as  to 
question  the  title  of  one  monkey  to  a  nut  stolen  from  his  fenian 
brother.  Neither  in  the  one  case  nor  in  the  other  has  there 
been  a  breach  of  the  standard  of  struggle  evolved  by  the  specie 
in  question  at  the  time  in  question.  This  leads  us  to  the  defini- 
tion of  the  basis  of  title  to  property. 

The  true  basis  of  title  to  property  is  acquisition  by  strug- 
gle according  to  the  standard  of  struggle  obtaining  at  the 
time  the  property  is  acquired. 

With  the  foregoing  as  the  basis  for  title  to  property,  the 
question  which  naturally  suggests  itself  is,  Why  should  title 
descending  to  heirs  continue  to  be  good  after  the  standard 
of  struggle  by  which  it  was  originally  acquired  has  been  super- 
seded ?    Without  going  into  the  pros  and  cons  of  this  question 


50  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

at^this  time,  it  may  be  well  to  point  out  that  the  Law  of 
Struggle  itself  supplies  the  remedy.  All  property-right  is 
really  in  a  state  of  flux  in  that  title-holders  have  to  fight  to 
retain  possession  according  to  every  new  standard  of  struggle ; 
and  if  the  heir  is  not  proficient  under  the  new  standard, 
there  will  be  an  inevitable  change  of  possession  and  of  title. 

4.  Honesty. 

Honesty,  then,  is  an  acquired,  as  distinguished  from  a 
natural  virtue,  enforced  by  society  in  order  to  maintain  a 
standard  of  struggle.  Conversely,  theft  is  a  crime,  not  because 
it  is  unnatural  but  because  it  represents  a  betrayal  of  the 
common  standard  of  struggle. 

Honesty  obtained  vogue  originally,  not  as  an  abstract 
virtue,  but  as  a  mark  of  the  bold  warrior  who  scorned  to  dis- 
possess the  owner  of  a  thing  without  fighting  for  it  openly. 
Honesty  came  into  being  as  a  fighting  virtue,  succeeding  the 
easier  method  of  acquisition  by  theft  precisely  because  hon- 
esty was  more  difficult  and  dangerous.  Honesty,  then,  is 
really  a  virtue  born  of  the  chivalry  of  struggle. 

In  our  time,  it  is  true,  theft  has  been  made  dangerous  by 
law  but  it  has  not  been  made  more  difficult  than  honesty. 
The  chagrin  of  the  person  whose  theft  is  discovered  is  due 
not  only  to  the  fact  that  his  purpose  has  been  frustrated  but 
also  because  he  has  been  caught  fighting  according  to  a  lower 
and  therefore  treacherous  standard. 

5.  Good  and  Bad. 

We  may  speak  of  abstract  virtue  and  sin,  good  and  evil, 
but  these  expressions  are  simply  of  the  short-hand  of  human 
speech. 

There  is  really  no  such  thing  as  abstract  good  and  evil. 
Things  are  only  good  or  bad  in  relation  to  their  increasing  or 
diminishing  influence  on  struggle  and  insofar  as  they  tend  to 
uphold  or  lower  the  common  standard  of  struggle  attained. 

6.  Courage. 

Let  us  take,  for  example,  courage.  It  is  obvious  that  in  a 
world-organization  of  which  struggle  is  the  meat,  courage 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  51 

must  become  a  universal  virtue.  The  virtue  of  courage  is  a 
fundamental  one.  It  is  present  in  the  beast  in  varying  degrees, 
according  to  its  life-experience  or  pain-adventures.  It  is  at 
its  height  in  man,  but  is  often  not  discernible  as  courage, 
because  man  has  introduced  the  fabian  element  of  prudence 
in  his  battles;  that  is,  man,  unlike  the  tiger  for  example, 
reckons  not  only  with  the  immediate  obstacle  but  with  conse- 
quential factors,  as  also  the  fox  does  on  a  pettier  scale.  Strug- 
gle takes  cognizance  of  courage  and  honors  it  whenever  and 
wherever  it  becomes  conspicuous.  Courage  is  not  mentioned 
among  the  ten  commandments  of  the  Hebrews,  simply  because 
it  is  the  oldest  of  human  virtues,  being,  in  fact,  an  animal- 
virtue  and  therefore  taken  for  granted.  Not  to  have  courage, 
not  to  endure,  not  to  persist,  is  not  to  live  at  all.  The  virtue 
of  courage,  however,  is  so  fundamental  that  it  must  not  sur- 
prise us  to  find  that  all  praise  takes  the  form  of  recognition 
of  courage,  whether  the  subject  of  it  is  a  soldier  who  has  con- 
quered or  an  etymologist  who  has  persevered  in  his  hunt  for 
an  old  root. 

7.  Sin  or  Surrender. 

It  follows  that  if  courage,  persistence,  endurance  and  kin- 
dred virtues  are  virtues  in  struggle,  the  outstanding  vice  is 
weak-spiritedness  or  cowardice  as  exemplified  in  surrender. 
The  great  virtue  of  struggle  is  to  struggle,  the  great  vice  is 
to  surrender.  This  applies  through  the  whole  gamut  of  exist- 
ence from  the  embattled  nation  fighting  against  subjugation, 
the  besieged  garrison,  the  maiden  defending  her  honor,  cap- 
tains of  finance  and  industry,  small  and  great,  in  their  nerve- 
racking  tugs-of-war,  the  laborer  faithful  to  his  monotonous 
grind,  the  athlete  in  his  sport,  the  fighting  beasts  of  the  forest, 
and,  I  doubt  not,  the  mutual  resistance  of  the  so-called  inani- 
mate elements  who  only  yield  to  the  superior  onsets  of  their 
kind. 

8.  The  Virtues. 

It  follows  that  with  such  an  organization  of  the  world, 
whatever  is  in  aid  of  struggle  is  a  virtue  or  good,  and  what- 


52  TPIE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

ever  retards  or  defeats  struggle  is  a  vice  and  bad.  Just  as  the 
athlete  training  for  a  great  trial  of  his  powers,  rigorously 
adheres  to  his  selected  diet  of  plain  fare,  so  the  world  in  its 
onward  strivings  has  hammered  out  habits  of  life  which  it 
terms  virtues  and  which  it  will  do  its  utmost  to  press  into 
universal  service.  As  the  ancient  Hebrews  said  of  their  laws 
of  Deuteronomy:  "These  are  the  laws  of  which  ye  shall  live 
and  not  die." 

Easily  comprehensible  as  fitting  into  the  scheme  of  strug- 
gle are  a  great  many  of  the  common  human  virtues.  Such  are 
courage,  industry,  prudence,  economy,  hardihood,  tenacity, 
etc.,  etc.  But  there  are  other  human  virtues  which  at  first 
sight  do  not  seem  to  fit  into  the  struggle-scheme  and  seem  to 
be  in  conflict  with  it.  Such  are,  for  example,  modesty,  sym- 
pathy, .justice,  generosity,  self-sacrifice,  humbleness,  humility, 
etc.    These  therefore  remain  to  be  considered. 

9.    Modesty. 

Most  virtues  show  even  upon  the  most  superficial  exami- 
nation that  they  are  virtues  by  reason  of  their  obvious 
enhancement  of  struggle  just  as  most  vices  are  seen  to  be  evil 
because  they  run  counter  to  the  fundamental  requirements  of 
struggle.  Thus,  for  example,  it  needs  no  profound  investiga- 
tion to  disclose  that  courage  is  a  virtue  and  that  cowardice  is 
evil.  Of  such  ethical  conceptions  it  is  hardly  necessary  to 
speak. 

Why  is  it  then  that  the  quality  of  modesty  is  considered 
not  only  a  virtue  in  a  world  of  struggle  but  also  a  grace? 
Let  us  examine  the  main-springs  of  modesty.  Modesty — not 
bashfulness — properly  considered,  is  a  superior  kind  of  pride. 
The  modest  man  aims  so  to  demean  himself,  so  to  struggle, 
that  his  actions  shall  speak  for  him.  It  is  a  recognition  that 
only  that  is  worthy  which  is  obtainable  by  struggle.  Why  is 
it  that  we  stammer  and  effect  to  become  foolish  when  we  are 
praised  to  our  faces'?  It  is  because  praise  is  something  abnor- 
mal. It  goes  against  the  whole  current  of  our  life.  We  are 
accustomed  to  fight  for  everything.  When  someone,  however, 
suddenly  stands  up  and  says  to  us:  ''Here,  I  give  you  gladly 
what  you  have  been  fighting  for,"  it  upsets  us.     We  only 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  53 

appreciate,  we  hoard  only  trophies  of  such  gains  as  were 
acquired  by  struggle.  Even  when  we  acquire  things  acci- 
dentally or  without  effort,  we  try  to  justify  the  acquisition 
along  the  lines  of  struggle-virtue.  All  must  be  justified  by 
struggle.  For  this  reason  it  is  immoral  to  listen  to  praise,  to 
eat  the  bread  of  idleness,  to  live  on  charity,  to  accept  unearned 
gifts  of  any  kind,  to  steal  another's  honors.  The  modest  man 
is  pre-eminently  proud.  His  standards  of  struggle  are  high 
and  difficult.  He  fears  praise  as  a  corrupting  worm.  He  is 
a  man  of  faith  because  he  believes  that  no  word  or  artifice  is 
necessary  to  set  true  struggle  in  the  right  light  but  that  it  will 
receive  ultimate  justice. 

I  do  not  mean  by  this  that  the  modest  man  does  not  like 
praise.  Everybody  likes  praise.  But  the  modest  man  will 
take  pains  to  see  that  praise  of  him  flows  inevitably  from  his 
acts;  that  it  is  an  earned  increment;  otherwise,  he  will  shud- 
dering! y  turn  from  the  devil  of  flattery,  realizing  that  it  means 
death  to  struggle. 

10.  Duty. 

Duty  stands  in  no  ethical  isolation  in  man.  Duty  is 
simply  the  extension  of  the  sense  of  obligation  beyond  the 
immediate  interests  of  the  individual.  A  man  may  have  a 
sense  of  duty  to  his  family,  his  friends,  city  or  state,  but  they 
are  all  extensions  of  his  sense  of  duty  to  his  own  selfhood. 

11.  Sympathy. 

One  would  imagine  that  a  struggle-system  could  not 
admit  of  s^onpathy  as  one  of  its  inseparable  concomitants;  and 
yet,  what  is  more  common  than  sympathy? 

We  have  but  to  analyze  the  causes  of  human  sympathy 
in  order  to  understand  how  naturally  it  fits  into  the  scheme 
of  things.    With  whom  do  we  sympathize? 

(a)  We  sympathize  with  him  whose  successful  struggle 
will  confer  a  benefit  upon  us. 

(b)  We  s>Tnpathize  with  him  whose  struggle  has  been 
revealed  to  us  intimately  or  closely. 

(c)  We  sympathize  with  him  who  has  a  greater  burden 
of  struggle  than  is  proportionate  to  his  strength. 


54  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

As  for  the  first  cause  of  sympatliy,  it  hardly  requires 
explanation.  It  must  be  obvious  that  where  we  expect  to 
benefit  through  the  successful  struggle  of  another,  the  result- 
ant sympathy  is  the  sympathy  of  self-interest  and  is  akin  to 
sympathy  with  our  own  struggle. 

The  second  cause  of  sympathy  may  require  some  elucida- 
tion. TTe  have  all  noticed,  no  doubt,  that  we  have  an  almost 
insuperable  sympathy  with  people  with  whom  we  have  been 
in  contact  for  a  great  length  of  time,  or  whose  striving  has 
been  intimately  revealed  to  us  as  in  the  case  of  an  invalid  or 
sufferer.  Some  of  these  people  may  have  shown  disagreeable 
or  even  despicable  traits  in  the  course  of  our  prolonged  ac- 
quaintance. But,  be  they  saints  or  sinners,  they  have  some- 
how been  revealed  to  us  in  the  attitude  of  struggle  against  the 
forces  of  the  world.  We  have  been  permitted  a  glimpse  into 
the  interior  of  their  poor  defenses  and  our  sympathy  has  been 
aroused,  consciously  or  unconsciously.  Conversely,  strangers, 
especially  strangers  without  the  faculty  of  instant  self -reve- 
lation in  face,  manner  or  smile,  that  is  to  say,  strangers  with- 
out the  knack  of  revealing  themselves  in  the  attitude  of 
struggle  against  those  odds  which  we  all  face,  have  the  effect 
of  abridging  our  sympathies  and  of  looking  to  our  defenses. 

The  third  cause  of  s^^npathy  is  also  inherent  in  the  nature 
of  struggle.  There  can  be  no  struggle  where  the  opposing 
forces  are  unequal  or,  to  be  more  accurate,  where  the  burden 
of  struggle  is  on  one  but  not  on  the  other.  On  this  account, 
barring  special  interests,  our  sympathies  are  always  with  the 
weaker.  The  world  detests  a  bully,  a  giant  measuring  his 
strength  with  an  infant.  What  the  world  understands  by  a 
hero  is  not  one  who  is  simply  strong,  but  one  who,  be  he  weak 
or  strong,  assumes  to  measure  his  strength  with  forces  that 
are  formidable  in  proportion  to  his  strength.  The  same  prin- 
ciple holds  good  whether  the  medium  of  the  struggle  is  a 
game,  a  prize-fight  or  a  war.  Germany,  in  the  attitude  of 
despoiling  little  Belgium  for  example,  can  hardly  hope  to 
evoke  the  sympathy  of  the  impartial  observer.  It  is  only 
when,  like  the  dying  Fafnir  of  its  own  legends,  it  lies  pros- 
trate before  a  more  powerful  antagonist,  that  it  can  hope 
for  a  measure  of  sympathy. 


STRUGGLE  AS  MOEALITY  55 

12.  Generosity,  Charity. 

Here  are  a  couple  of  virtues  which,  at  first  blush,  seem  to 
conflict  with  the  principle  of  struggle.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  they  are  born  of  the  same  horror  of  failure  and 
frustrated  strivings  which  we  all  share  in  greater  or  less 
degree  in  accordance  with  the  sensitiveness  to  pain  that  is  in 
us.  The  struggle  of  the  meanest  and  weakest  among  us  has 
the  effect  of  mirroring  our  own  struggle,  its  anxieties  and 
hopes;  and  the  more  sensitive  we  are  the  more  we  will  be 
moved  to  aid  those  who  feel  and  strive  but  cannot  achieve — 
provided,  of  course,  they  do  not  oppose  us  in  our  own  struggle. 
The  existence  of  such  qualities  as  generosity,  charity  and  sym- 
pathy in  all  their  forms  proves  that  the  struggle  of  human 
beings  is  not  necessarily  antagonistic  except  in  its  most  primi- 
tive stages.  In  fact,  as  already  indicated,  generosity  and 
charity  are  extensions  of  our  selfhood  beyond  the  demands  of 
the  narrower  ego. 

13.  Self-Sacrifice. 

There  is  really  no  such  thing  as  self-sacrifice.  Self-sacri- 
fice exists  in  Struggle  as  an  extension  of  self,  not  as  an  elimina- 
tion of  it.  An  act  of  self-sacrifice  is  an  assumption  of  a  greater 
measure  of  struggle  which  is  demanded  by  the  extension  of 
selfhood.  In  the  economy  of  struggle  it  represents  the  acqui- 
sition of  something,  not  the  surrender  of  anything,  although 
the  act  may  be  fraught  with  pain,  anxiety  and  fear.  It  may 
be  said  that  the  struggler  surrenders  his  peace  of  mind.  But 
there  is  no  provision  for  peace  of  mind  in  the  scheme  of  the 
world  and  it  is  doubtful,  to  say  the  least,  whether  the  struggler 
could  acquire  it  by  refusing  to  assume  a  struggle  for  which 
he  has  become  fit  and  to  which  he  feels  himself  called. 

In  short,  there  is  nothing  in  the  real  nature  of  self- 
sacrifice,  so  called,  which  is  in  conflict  with  the  Law  of 
Struggle. 

14.  Pity,  Mercy. 

He  who  appeals  to  us  to  have  mercy  invites  us  to  put 
ourselves  in  his  place  and  to  remember  that,  in  most  essentials. 


56  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

he  typifies  our  own  position  in  the  struggle  that  never  ceases. 
It  requires  singular  unimaginativeness  or  a  very  strong  cause 
to  be  impervious  to  such  demands.  The  greater  the  struggler 
the  more  apt  he  will  be  to  be  struck  by  the  full  force  of  such 
appeals.  Far  from  being  at  variance  with  the  principle  of 
struggle,  however,  pity  and  mercy  would  have  no  meaning 
save  in  conjunction  with  struggle. 

15.  Justice. 

Justice,  too,  can  have  no  meaning  save  in  relation  to 
struggle.  To  do  justice  is  to  support  him  whose  fight  has  been 
in  accordance  with  the  accepted  standard  of  struggle  as 
against  him  whose  fight  has  been  below  the  standard.  To 
deny  justice  is  to  confirm  the  evil-doer  in  his  treason  to  the 
common  standard  to  which  the  world  has  progressed  and  to 
betray  him  who  has  relied  upon  it.  Injustice  may,  therefore, 
be  regarded  as  the  natural  precursor  of  anarchy  which  may 
be  defined  as  a  state  of  struggle  without  enforceable  standards. 

16.  Honor. 

There  are  a  class  of  fighters  to  whom  the  observance  of 
the  highest  standards  of  struggle  is  of  equal  importance  with 
the  things  for  which  they  strive.  High  standards,  in  fact, 
take  precedence  with  this  class.  They  summarize  their  alle- 
giance to  these  standards  by  the  word  "honor." 

Inasmuch  as  we  are  creatures  of  struggle,  however,  it  is 
ofttimes  very  difficult  to  live  up  to  the  dictates  of  honor. 
We  meet  this  difficulty  in  sport,  discussion,  in  our  business 
undertakings  and  in  war.  But  tho  the  decisions  in  honor's 
behalf  may  come  hard,  the  fact  does  not  belie  its  existence. 

17.  Magnanimity,  Benevolence,  Nobility. 

Custom,  pride  and  the  law  compel  us  to  observance  of 
the  common  standard  of  struggle.  The  magnanimous,  the 
benevolent  and  the  noble  rise  above  the  common  standard  of 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  57 

struggle.  They  set  themselves  a  higher  standard,  but  they 
struggle  nevertheless.  Therein  lies  all  the  difference  between 
human  littleness  and  human  greatness. 

18.    Humbleness,  Humility. 

The  inability  to  discern  struggle  when  we  see  it  because 
of  its  inoffensive  guise,  leads  many  to  misunderstand,  misin- 
terpret, overrate  and  underestimate  acts,  characteristics,  per- 
sons, people  and  conditions;  to  render  us  unfit  for  struggle 
ourselves. 

Humbleness  and  Humility,  like  other  human  and  animal 
qualities,  have  no  meaning  whatever  except  in  relation  to 
struggle.  Who  has  not  observed  at  some  time  a  dog  of  humble 
mien?  That  dog,  whoever  he  is  and  however  he  came  by 
it,  has  been  thoroughly  persuaded,  consciously,  or  uncon- 
sciously, of  his  relative  powerlessness,  his  lack  of  weapons  of 
offence  against  a  militant  world  in  arms  against  his  kind. 
He  may  have  developed  a  greater  intelligence  than  his  better- 
born,  be-ribboned  brother.  At  any  rate  he  is  apt  to  have  a 
more  correct  appraisement  of  his  own  powers  and  of  the- 
tactics  best  suited  to  his  capacities.  He  has  learned  that  it  is 
better  and  safer  to  slink  than  to  spring;  to  wait  until  the 
butcher  or  cook  has  disappeared  before  attacking  the  slop- 
pail;  to  seek  his  opportunity  obscurely;  to  be  wary  of  other 
dogs;  and  so  on,  in  all  situations.  Who  shall  say  that  this 
is  not  a  well-calculated  method  of  struggle? 

We  are  accustomed  to  thinking  of  many  animals  as  timid, 
like  the  deer,  for  example.  Timid  in  relation  to  what!  Do 
they  overrate  the  power  of  their  enemies,  then?  The  deer 
knows  that  his  best  weapon  is  flight.  His  weapons  of  offense 
are  inadequate.  He  struggles,  accordingly,  like  many  a  gen- 
eral in  a  like  position.  When  cornered,  they  may  both  attack 
desperately.  So  will  a  rat.  The  soldier,  having  a  knowledge 
of  the  usages  of  human  warfare,  may  seek  safety  in  surrender- 
Surrender  to  an  enemy  is  also  a  form  of  struggle,  but  it  is  on 
a  terribly  low  scale — the  struggle  merely  to  sustain  life  which, 
in  terms  of  Pain-Struggle,  means  struggle  for  the  existence  of 
struggle  and  not  for  its  increase.  Our  error  is  to  be  always 
thinking  of  struggle  in  terms  of  attack.     Struggle  manifests 


58  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

itself  in  many  ways,  in  fliglit,  in  surrender,  yes,  and  in  hum- 
bleness. Even  the  suicide,  who  represents  the  most  flagrant 
instance  of  surrender,  struggles  in  desperation  against  the 
immediate  pain  of  which  he  is  conscious,  irrespective  of 
consequences. 

Humbleness  is  not  a  negation  of  struggle.  It  is  a  way  of 
struggle;  generally,  an  astute  and  seasoned  way,  growing  out 
of  many  conflicts,  many  defeats.  But  humbleness  is  not  nec- 
essarily an  attribute  of  the  beaten  alone.  So  to  imagine  is 
to  have  a  false  and  stilted  conception  of  what  constitutes  a 
hero.  After  all,  what  makes  a  hero?  A  hero  is  one  who 
experiences  many  defeats,  takes  many  a  beating,  assimilates 
them  all  and,  once  in  a  while,  when  it  counts  most,  puts  in  a 
blow  on  his  own  account. 

So  much  for  humbleness.  But  how  about  humility?  Does 
not  this  represent  a  virtue  which  is  at  the  same  time  a  negation 
of  struggle  ?  It  is  true  that  we  associate  humility  with  saints. 
The  Bible  speaks  of  the  good  as  ''walking  humbly  before  the 
Lord,"  for  example.  But  this  religious  humility  represents 
the  holy  moments  of  contact  between  the  venturesome  spirit 
of  man  and  revelations  of  eternity.  It  is  the  mute  surprise 
of  the  frail  mortal  who,  with  unlooked-for  power,  has  suddenly 
brushed  aside  the  mantle  from  the  face  of  the  Lord.  He 
needs  must  walk  much  more  softly  than  the  world-wise  pil- 
grim among  the  labyrinths  of  daily  affairs. 

19.    Prestige. 

However  kind,  however  humble,  sanctimonious,  peaceful, 
modest,  demure,  unselfish,  unaffected  or  democratic  we  may 
be,  we  never  escape  the  obligation  of  struggle.  We  show  this 
in  countless  ways,  although  we  often  make  ludicrous  attempts 
to  disguise  and  even  to  suppress  this  very  human  trait.  One 
of  the  ways  in  which  the  aggressiveness  of  our  real  attitude 
is  betrayed  is  through  the  care  we  bestow  on  appearances. 
Why  do  we  bestow  so  much  of  our  time,  patience  and  sub- 
stance upon  our  dress,  manners,  the  appearance  of  our  homes 
and  whatever  is  related  to  us  ?  Why,  except  in  aid  of  our  pres- 
tige which  in  turn  is  calculated,  consciously  or  unconsciously, 
to  aid  us  in  our  struggle! 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  59 

20.  Self -Consciousness. 

Self-consciousness  is  a  state  of  feeling  born  of  the  wish  to 
conquer,  coupled,  however,  with  knowledge  of  inexperience  in 
the  particular  struggle  at  hand. 

21.  Blood-Guiltiness  or  Homicide. 

Murder  is  a  heinous  offence  because  it  is  the  most  pal- 
pable instance  of  the  permanent  cutting  off  of  another 's  strug- 
gle. The  world  detests  the  murderer  because  the  act  is  an 
indication  of  callousness  or  non-sensitiveness.  Conversely, 
where  the  murderer  is  able  to  show  sensitiveness  he  is  gen- 
erally able  to  show  cause  or  extenuating  circumstances,  and 
the  effect  on  public  opinion  veers  from  abhorrence  to 
sympathy. 

22.  What  Constitutes  Progress? 

Human  progress  is  constituted  in  two  ways:  Increased 
sensitiveness  to  all  forms  of  phenomena  and  increased  strug- 
gle resulting  therefrom. 

Conflicting  human  interests  contain  great  possibilities  of 
struggle  as  the  world  has  seen,  but  to  stop  at  this  form  of 
struggle  is  to  stop  at  a  low  level  of  struggle  and  to  limit  it. 
If  the  world  had  stopped  at  this  form  of  struggle,  there  would 
have  been  no  exchange  of  ideas,  no  social  intercourse  worth 
mentioning  and  men  would  only  meet  to  dash  out  each  other's 
brains.  Therefore  it  is  that  the  spirit  of  all  progressive  laws 
tends  more  and  more  so  to  make  a  man  struggle  as  not  to  cut 
off  and  not  to  conflict  with  another  man's  struggle.  All  pro- 
gressively conceived  legislation  has  this  end  in  view,  regard- 
less of  its  immediate  effect. 

For  it  is  true  that  the  immediate  effect  of  much  progres- 
sive legislation,  art  and  invention  at  present  is  conflict,  but 
their  ultimate  tendency  is  to  increase  the  possibilities  of 
struggle  for  each  individual  upon  non-conflicting  or  less  con- 
flicting lines  with  the  interests  of  other  individuals. 

I  realize  that  the  question  may  be  asked:  If  the  aim  of 
life  is  struggle,  why  try  to  reduce  inter-human  conflict?  Obvi- 
ously, the  answer  is:  To  release  the  world  to  greater  struggle. 
For  interhuman  conflict  is  by  no  means  synonymous  with 


60  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

Struggle;  it  is  only  a  stage  or  degree  of  Struggle  which  must 
be  passed.  For  to  progress  means  to  go  from  one  degree  of 
struggle  to  another,  and  the  implications  of  struggle,  strange 
to  say,  point  not  to  more  inter-human  conflict  but  to  the 
emergence  therefrom. 

23.  Cruelty. 

Cruelty  is  abhorrent  to  sensitive  man  because  it  involves 
firstly,  the  state  of  callousness  to  the  pain  of  others,  and, 
secondly,  because  cruelty  involves  the  needless  interference 
with  or  abridgment  of  the  struggle  of  another. 

24.  Crime. 

Human  impulses  have  a  centripetal  and  centrifugal  ten- 
dency, depending  on  inner  and  outer  stimuli  of  pain  or  the 
suggestions  of  pain.  The  radius  of  our  sympathies  expands 
and  contracts  in  accordance  with  what  is  in  us  and  the  modifi- 
cations of  outer  circumstances.  There  are  inner  and  outer 
conditions  which  call  for  deeds  of  generosity,  sacrifice  and 
heroism.  There  are  conditions  which  compel  to  an  abridge- 
ment of  these  virtues  and  the  ascendency  of  narrow,  calculat- 
ing longings  and  deeds.  There  is  current  a  saying  in  this 
country  that  ''it  pays  to  be  honest."  Perhaps,  it  does.  I 
rather  think  it  does.  But  it  must  not  be  pretended  that  it  is 
easier  to  be  honest.  It  is  far  more  difficult  to  be  honest,  gen- 
erous and  punctilious  than  to  be  the  opposite.  The  penal 
statutes  do  not  weigh  much  in  the  balance,  because  occasions 
are  innumerable  when  they  may  be  surmounted  in  the  same 
way  that  a  man  daily  surmounts  the  dangers  of  a  street- 
crossing. 

Let  every  reader  consult  his  own  heart  and  see  if  this  is 
not  true.  It  is  far  more  natural  to  sin  than  to  punish  for 
the  sin.  No,  it  is  not  easy  to  be  virtuous.  It  constitutes  the 
greatest  tax  upon  human  strength  and  endurance  because  all 
virtue  represents  the  highest  gamut  of  struggle.  And  it  is  far 
from  easy  to  maintain  the  highest.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
quite  natural  to  sink  under  the  strain  from  time  to  time.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  natural,  though  more  difficult,  to 
rise  and  go  forward  again.  From  such  temporary  defeats, 
reactions  which  every  individual  suffers  from  time  to  time, 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  61 

spring  all  development  and  progressions.  They  are  the  spir- 
itual exercises  of  humanity,  leading  from  strength  to  strength, 
from  lower  to  higher  standards  of  struggle. 

During  some  such  a  temporary  relapse  in  struggle,  it 
often  happens  that  the  State  steps  in  and  puts  its  heavy  hand 
upon  the  offender,  dragging  him  down  to  lower  depths  than 
the  wretch  had  thought  possible  for  him  to  sink.  It  puts  an 
eternal  collar  of  iron  upon  all  the  healthy  forward  impulses 
which  would  have  been  his  had  he  remained  undetected  in 
his  temporary  lapse  or  crime.  Laborer,  banker,  merchant, 
physician,  lawyer  or  official,  once  discovered  in  the  descend- 
ing scale  of  struggle  under  the  stress  of  some  great  danger 
or  temptation,  he  is  doomed  to  the  branding-iron  of  the  degen- 
erate and  habitualized  criminal. 

The  world  credits  itself  with  more  virtue  than  it  really 
has  or  labors  under  the  delusion  that  it  can  always  be  had  for 
the  asking,  and  looks  upon  those  that  falter  with  the  merci- 
lessness  of  ignorance;  all  of  which  is  due  to  the  failure  to 
appreciate  the  fact  that  life  is  not  static  but  dynamic;  that 
virtue  is  an  attainment  of  struggle  possible  to  all  but  not  all 
the  time  attainable.  Insofar  as  society  acts  not  from  the  wish 
to  prevent  but  to  punish,  it  lacerates  itself  needlessly  and 
defeats  its  own  purposes. 

25.  Despair. 

Despair  is  the  name  we  have  given  to  the  realization  that 
comes  over  us  when  our  pain  cannot  express  itself  in  struggle. 
In  this  sense,  then,  despair  is  a  kind  of  untranslatable  pain 
and  is  therefore  an  abnormal  state.  For  pain  should  always 
be  in  a  state  of  liux.  We  call  those  people  pessimists  who  do 
not  see  that  the  pain  of  the  world  is  expressed  in  the  struggle 
of  the  world,  that  yearning  is  realizable  in  doing,  if  not  in  the 
periods  measured  by  life,  then  in  the  longer  spaces  of  struggle. 

26.  Ambition. 

This  is  another  word  for  desire,  yearning  or  the  pain  to 
achieve. 

27.  Marriage. 

Marriage  organizes  our  life  for  struggle.  Hence  the 
sanctity  of  marriage  ties. 


62  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

28.  Bearing  Children. 

The  begetting  of  children  is  an  extension  of  individual 
struggle  not  unlike  any  other.  There  is  a  duty  to  bear  chil- 
dren; but  it  is  absurd  to  claim  that  this  duty  supersedes  the 
duty  to  give  them  a  fighting  chance.  To  breed  without  respon- 
sibility is  to  help  set  the  world  on  fire.  Nor  are  numbers  alone 
conducive  to  the  improvement  of  human  quality.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  folly  to  try  to  change  the  way  of  the  world 
and,  as  a  condition  precedent,  await  a  lane  of  roses. 

29.  Love. 

The  gradations  of  pain  are  wonderful  in  their  variety 
They  range  from  the  most  delicate  nuances  to  the  most  pow- 
erful degrees.  The  love-pain  suggests  a  composite  pain.  That 
love  is  a  form  of  pain,  however,  is  not  to  be  doubted. 

30.  Sex  Relations. 

Those  sex  relations  and  sex  alliances  are  permissible 
which  make  for  increased  capacity  to  struggle  on  the  part 
of  the  human  race.  Humanity  has  made  wide  detours  in 
order  to  avoid  such  relations  as  result  in  sterility,  anaemia, 
enfeeblement  of  mind  and  body  and  loose  family  organization. 

In  arriving  at  its  decisions  as  to  what  is  good  and  bad 
in  these  matters,  humanity  has  employed,  as  usual,  not  its 
reason,  but  its  intuition  which  is  our  true  life-line  in  the  sea  of 
human  consequences. 

Our  modern  rationalists  demand  that  the  whole  matter  of 
sex  relations  be  submitted  to  the  test  of  reason.  But  humanity 
never  did  and  does  not  now  rely  upon  reason  for  guidance  in 
these  matters.  It  places  its  faith  in  intuition  which  has 
enabled  it  to  come  forward  from  untold  experiences  in  the 
dim  past  with  a  wealth  of  knowledge  that  runs  unerringly 
true  for  all  that  it  is  inarticulate. 

31.  Woman  Suffrage. 

The  evolution  of  the  suffrage  movement  among  women 
is  a  very  natural  and  logical  one.  As  long  as  man  assumed 
the  entire  burden  of  struggle  in  facing  the  outer  world  in 
behalf  of  the  marital  organization,  it  was  natural  that  all 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  63 

authority  and  responsibility  should  be  vested  in  him,  especially 
in  matters  affecting  the  relations  of  the  family  organization 
with  the  outer  world.  "When  man  began  to  push  women  into 
the  vanguard  of  the  fighting  so  that  both  severally  assumed 
the  same  burden  of  struggle,  it  became  perfectly  natural  in 
the  economy  of  struggle  for  women  to  demand  all  the  powers 
and  privileges  that  go  with  independent  struggle.  Applying 
the  unfailing  test  of  struggle,  it  will  be  increasingly  difficult 
to  deny  women  the  right  of  suffrage. 

32.    Sex  Equality. 

Is  woman  the  equal  of  man?  It  is  difficult  to  answer 
such  a  question  because  unlike  things  can  hardly  be  compared. 

If  her  potentialities  for  sensitiveness  is  developed,  there 
is  no  setting  limits  to  her  attainments. 

But  woman  is  not  and  should  not  strive  to  become  the 
same  as  man.  The  demand  of  some  that  women  be  judged  by 
the  same  code  of  morality  as  exists  for  men  is  in  some  respects 
premature,  at  least,  and  in  others,  definitely  absurd. 

As  yet,  for  example,  no  one  would  hold  up  women  to  the 
same  standard  as  men  in  matters  involving  honesty,  courage, 
etc.,  which  are  cardinal  virtues  with  men. 

On  the  other  hand,  woman  will  be  held  to  the  strictest 
account  as  to  her  chastity.  She  may  lie,  even  steal  or  fly  in 
the  face  of  real  or  imagined  dangers  and  no  one  will  think 
that  she  has  seriously  compromised  herself;  but  she  must  be 
chaste.  This  virtue  is  of  too  great  an  importance  in  relation 
to  the  peculiar  part  she  plays  in  the  family  organization  for 
her  to  be  judged  by  the  same  elastic  standards  as  applies  to 
men.  In  the  struggle  of  the  family  organization,  it  is  her 
post  of  honor  to  guard  the  inner  solidarity  of  the  establish- 
ment. 

In  this  connection,  it  is  significant  to  note  how  closely 
all  morality  is  related  to  the  nature  of  the  struggle  which  the 
individual  in  question  has  assumed.  The  sexual  morality  of 
the  soldier  and  even  of  the  artist,  for  example,  is  not  expected 
to  be  as  high  as  that  of  the  preacher,  etc. 


64  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

33.  Man  and  "Superman." 

The  "superman"  of  rhapsodical  philosophy  is  a  creature 
apart  from  other  men,  of  a  different  clay,  as  it  were.  From 
the  point  of  view  of  Pain-Struggle,  however,  this  grandilo- 
quent word,  if  it  means  anything,  means  more  of  a  man;  a 
man  of  wider  sensitiveness,  deeper  sympathies,  finer  under- 
standing, better  discipline,  able  to  strike  hard,  yet  not  insensi- 
ble to  the  sting  in  his  blow,  nor  losing  touch  with  the  valid 
interests  of  his  antagonist  nor  kinship  with  humanity;  a 
struggler,  in  short,  sensitive  to  all  that  is  sensitive,  a  man  of 
cares  walking  humbly  before  the  Lord. 

34.  Tyranny  and  the  Right  to  Liberty. 

There  is  no  vested  title  to  liberty.  Whoever  has  met  a 
difficulty  and  struggled  with  it  has  known  liberty.  He  is 
already  free  who  struggles  with  his  bondage.  It  is,  there- 
fore, impossible  to  make  slave  one  who  struggles  to  be  free. 
The  same  principle  applies  equally  to  a  nation  as  to  an 
individual.  As  long  as  there  is  any  kind  of  resistance  to  the 
conqueror,  the  national  entity  continues  in  being.  In  fact, 
it  may  be  stated  as  an  axiom  that  the  test  of  nationality  in 
any  people  is  in  its  collective  will  to  struggle.  Just  what 
form  that  struggle  is  to  take  I  will  not  say,  nor  is  it  import- 
ant. It  is  sufficient  that  its  struggle  takes  some  form  of 
resistance.  It  is  not  even  essential  that  all  or  even  the 
majority  of  a  people  maintain  the  struggle.  The  will  to 
struggle  can  be  demonstrated  by  a  small  group  or  even  by 
one.  As  long  as  all  resistance  has  not  been  annihilated  or 
suppressed,  the  national  entity  is  still  in  being. 

The  right  to  liberty  is  a  negative  right.  Although  liberty 
may  not  be  had  without  struggle,  no  one  has  the  right  to 
consciously  come  in  conflict  with  the  struggle  of  another  to 
attain  liberty;  and  it  is  the  latter  act  which  goes  under  the 
name  of  tyranny.  For  tyranny  is  the  needless  interference 
with  or  obstruction  to  the  struggle  of  another.  While  no  one 
can  grant  us  liberty,  the  interference  with  our  own  struggle 
to  achieve  it  is  an  invasion  of  our  rights. 

Tyranny  is  not  only  odious'  in  its  obvious  implications 
but  also  because  it  runs  counter  to  the  idealism  of  the  world. 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  65 

Humanity,  from  time  immemorial,  has  been  groping  with 
dimly  understood,  hardly  uttered  hopes  toward  a  time  when 
human  struggle  shall  take  non-conflicting  lines.  Tyranny, 
however,  stands  for  repression  of  the  struggle  of  some  in  the 
narrow  interest  of  others,  be  they  one  or  many.  It  represents 
therefore  a  stage  of  inter-human  conflict  which  is  bound  to 
be  eliminated  in  the  natural  progressions  of  struggle. 

35.    Morality  and  Economics. 

There  is  current  a  belief  that  life  is  naturally  easy  but 
man,  by  his  repressive  laws  and  institutions,  has  made  it 
difficult;  that,  if  we  desire  it,  we  need  adhere  to  no  regimen, 
reap  without  sowing,  marry  without  responsibility,  conquer 
without  striving,  extract  joy  out  of  life  and  reject  its  cares, 
make  sacrifices  without  hardship,  in  short,  that  life  is  a  ready- 
made  jam  which  the  criminality  of  the  capitalist  and  hypo- 
crite has  hedged  around  with  barbed  wire. 

I  once  heard  a  socialist  orator  describe  the  fall  of  a 
shop-girl  in  this  language:  ''The  poor  girl  worked  all  day, 
she  had  an  invalid  mother  to  support  besides  a  younger 
brother  and  sister,  and  she  was  naturally  deprived  of  all  those 
comforts  and  enjoyments  which  so  many  others,  who  hap- 
pened to  be  a  little  more  fortunate,  had.  She  saw  a  chance  to 
forget  all  the  sordidness,  discomfort  and  cares  of  her  home 
and  she  abandoned  this  life  for  a  life  of  vice.  Can  you 
blame  her?" 

Certainly  not,  if  we  are  to  view  life  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  socialist  and  utilitarian.  But  viewing  life  as  it  is,  we 
must  come  to  quite  different  conclusions.  Morality  has  no 
meaning  save  as  standards  to  be  adhered  to  under  difficult 
conditions.  Our  wants  and  capacities  for  enjoyment  are 
innumerable.  They  follow  us  and  multiply  under  all  condi- 
tions. But  life  is  hard,  not  soft.  Doing  the  easier  thing  is 
not  struggle.  It  is  surrender — and  surrender  is  sin.  The  sub- 
stitution of  a  different  economic  system  will  not  furnish  us 
with  a  morality  devoid  of  austerities,  hardships,  difficult 
decisions  and  possibilities  of  sin.  Morality  can  have  no  exist- 
ence save  in  relation  to  struggle.  Our  sins  may  be  removed 
to  another  sphere  but  they  will  be  relatively  just  as  heinous 


66  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

and  no  one  will  be  able  to  find  a  balm  for  our  individual 
culpability. 

What  is  the  good  of  pretending  that  our  schemes  for 
economic  betterment  are  a  panacea  for  human  failings,  pain 
and  struggle?  The  most  that  we  can  claim  for  our  cure-alls 
is  that  they  will  help  somewhat  to  surmount  the  present 
struggle  in  some  particular  and  thus  place  us  to  carry  on  with 
other  struggles. 

36.  Callousness. 

Callousness  is  the  antithesis  of  sensitiveness.  Nature 
abhors  callousness — so  much  so,  that,  as  I  have  intimated 
elsewhere,  absolute  callousness  or  non-sensitiveness  does  not 
exist  anywhere. 

Callousness,  whether  in  matter  or  in  man,  is  the  concomi- 
tant of  grossness,  unresponsiveness,  inability  to  touch  the 
heights  either  in  feeling  or  in  struggle.  Therefore  it  is  that 
one  of  the  most  characteristic  traits  of  the  criminal  is  callous- 
ness. I  do  not  wish  to  imply  by  this  that  persons  capable  of 
terrible  deeds  are  necessarily  callous.  The  outstanding  deeds 
of  great  men  were  terrible  at  the  time  and  under  the  circum- 
stances under  which  they  were  committed;  but  though  they 
may  have  had  to  steel  their  hearts  to  the  task,  these  men  were 
pre-eminently  sensitive  to  the  nature  of  their  acts,  which  fact 
was  the  credential  of  their  humanity  and  their  greatness. 

37.  Vice. 

The  vices  are  those  practices,  habits  or  inclinations  which 
weaken  our  capacity  for  struggle.  The  instinct  to  struggle 
is  so  strongly  ingrained  in  human  nature,  that  vice  appears 
to  us,  not  merely  as  injurious,  but  also  as  ugly  and  vile.  At 
the  same  time  vice  does  have  a  certain  attraction  for  us  at 
times  because  it  presents  itself  in  the  form  of  self-indulgence, 
which  is  to  say,  as  offering  a  lower  and  therefore  easier  stand- 
ard of  struggle.  But  although  vice  does  offer  a  lower  and 
therefore  easier  standard  of  struggle,  it  can  offer  no  satisfac- 
tion to  those  who  have  once  known  a  higher  standard.  The 
original  impulse  to  struggle,  although  defeated,  still  remains, 
embittered,  crying  for  expression,  often  festering  like  a  wound 
that  has  been  bound  too  long,  but  by  no  means  cured;  and 


STRUGGLE  AS  MORALITY  67 

there  is  a  difference  between  pain  that  festers  and  putrefies 
and  becomes  venomous  and  the  clean  and  wholesome  pain 
which  expresses  itself  in  natural  struggle. 

Just  as  the  athlete  training  to  put  himself  in  condition, 
avoids  the  injurious  regimen,  so  mankind  in  its  efforts  to 
overcome  the  obstacles  of  life,  has  painstakingly  singled  out 
all  the  health-giving  habits  of  struggle  and  lovingly  given 
them  the  name  of  virtue  while  to  those  practices  which  are 
detrimental  to  the  highest  standard  of  struggle  it  has  given 
the  name  of  vice. 

38.  The  Punishment  of  Children. 

Inasmuch  as  we  put  an  artificial  barrier  of  protection 
around  our  children  in  order  to  protect  them  from  the  natural 
consequences  of  their  acts,  it  is  necessary  that  they  receive 
some  form  of  punishment  when  they  act  in  a  way  that  is 
injurious  or  dangerous  to  their  interests.  Failure  to  receive 
some  form  of  punishment  when  merited  tends  to  give  them  an 
incorrect  conception  of  the  world,  its  obstacles  and  dangers, 
and  renders  them  helpless  against  the  time  when,  according 
to  the  law  of  struggle,  they  have  to  shift  for  themselves. 

How,  when  and  who  should  administer  punishment  is  quite 
a  problem.  What  is  called  ^'natural  punishment"  seems  to 
be  a  good  system  to  follow.  Above  all,  however,  punishment 
should  be  suited  to  the  sensitiveness  of  the  child.  Where  a 
word  or  a  look  is  sufficient,  it  is  worse  than  folly  to  brutalize 
it  with  harsher  methods.  What  a  pity  that  society  has  not 
evolved  a  similar  method — punishment  graded  to  the  sensi- 
tiveness of  the  individual — in  dealing  with  adults ! 

39.  Filial  Respect. 

The  presumption  that  age  brings  with  it  a  harvest  of 
scars,  battle-experiences  and  sensitiveness  ripened  into  a 
measure  of  broadmindedness  and  wisdom  may  not  always  be 
justified,  but  it  is  well  to  believe  it  if  we  can.  In  the  case  of 
our  parents,  however,  whose  struggles  have  been  more  or  less 
of  an  open  book  to  us  and  whose  broadness  of  heart,  if  not  of 
mind,  was  always  apparent  where  our  interests  were  con- 
cerned, this  presumption  may  well  be  made  by  each  of  us. 
This,  I  think,  is  what  is  implied  in  filial  respect. 


68  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

40.    The  Growth  of  Sensitiveness  or  Civilization. 

The  early  Judaean  Christians,  finding  life  well  nigh  intol- 
erable under  the  bloody  sway  of  the  times,  confessed  that  life 
was  not  worth  while,  but  placed  great  emphasis  on  the  life 
hereafter  in  which  the  virtuous  and  gentle  would  find  their 
reward.  Their  eagerness  in  holding  out  this  future  after 
death  was  founded  principally  upon  the  belief  that  men  were 
virtuous  or  sinful  according  to  a  calculated  appraisement  of 
life's  guerdons.  It  was  apparent  that  life-on-earth  was  but 
a  sorry  reward  for  a  virtuous  life,  as  exemplified  by  the  tyr- 
anny of  Rome  over  Judaea,  the  sufferings  of  the  poor  and  so 
on.  AVhat  incentive  was  there  then  for  keeping  faith  with  the 
Lord  save  in  a  supernal  existence? 

They  failed  to  realize  that  virtue,  sensitiveness,  humility, 
gentleness  and  the  like  grew  quite  irresponsibly  and  in  vary- 
ing degrees  from  the  normal  processes  of  life  in  the  experience 
of  pain  and  struggle,  leavened  by  time.  No  man  can  become 
kind  and  merciful  through  the  expectation  of  reward  here  or 
elsewhere,  even  though  he  may  imagine  so.  It  can  only  flow 
from  the  attainment  of  ripeness  in  feeling  and  sensing,  which 
once  acquired,  will  persist.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  choosing  so 
much  as  of  having  or  acquiring.  And  in  the  fullness  of  time 
these  attributes  of  virtue — or  as  the  Bible  names  them,  right- 
eousness— descend  upon  the  world. 

Thus  the  Hebraic  movement  among  the  pagans  which 
resulted  in  Christianity  could  not  have  been  possible  if  the 
world  had  not  insensibly  moved  several  steps  nearer  to  the 
degree  of  sensitiveness  attained  by  the  Hebrews  to  make  a 
marriage  of  the  tAvo  elements  possible. 

Rome  was  surfeited  with  military  victories.  Greece  and 
the  whole  Hellenic  culture  had  lost  its  pristine  struggle-interest 
and  ceased  to  answer  the  want  in  the  heart  of  the  people. 
Even  among  some  of  the  barbarians  like  the  Norwegians,  a 
certain  unconscious  disdain  of  the  terrors  of  war  had 
developed  latterly,  as  was  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  embat- 
tled warriors  would  hack  their  own  flesh  in  sight  of  the  enemy 
in  order  to  show  how  little  awe  they  had  for  physical  suffering 
— an  evidence  that  warfare  was  losing  its  place  in  the  gamut 
of  struggle  even  among  the  uncivilized,  and  that  the  world 
was  ripe  for  another  experience. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
STRUGGLE  AS  STATE-CRAFT 

1.    Gregarious  Man. 

IF  WE  are  once  committed  to  the  Law  of  Struggle,  we  can- 
not think  of  man  save  as  a  gregarious  being.  Struggle  in 
its  higher  form  has  no  meaning  or  significance  save  as  it 
effects  other  human  beings.  Low  standards  of  struggle,  such 
as  are  known  to  those  animals  whose  only  striving  is  to  keep 
alive,  are  not  compatible  with  the  standards  of  struggle  neces- 
sarily evolved  by  the  highly  gregarious  state  of  human  society. 
It  is  by  contact  with  others  that  lofty  standards  of  struggle 
are  evolved.  It  is  largely  on  this  account  that  highly  sensitive, 
aggressive  natures  seek  out  the  press  of  men,  the  populous 
centers,  for  a  foil  to  their  struggle. 

All  experiments  to  prove  that  man  can  live  and  flourish  in 
a  state  of  isolation  have  proven  that  it  is  impossible  to  do  so. 
Such  a  state  would  only  be  productive  of  stunted  growths  or 
the  sickliness  of  spirit  that  passes  for  mysticism. 

A  well-known  American  writer  who  lived  in  the  solitude 
of  a  forest  for  two  years,  imagined  he  had  proven  that  civilized 
man  can  live  and  thrive  non-gregariously.  He  ruined  his 
argument,  however,  by  returning  to  civilized  life  and,  still 
worse,  by  writing  books  about  his  experiences.  We  are  apt 
to  forget  that  the  gregarious  habit  probably  developed  as  a 
necessity  of  struggle  and  is  of  incalculable  value  to  the  human 
race. 

Occasional  solitude,  even  years  of  solitude,  may  prove 
very  stimulating,  just  as  contact  with  the  life  of  the  large 
metropolis  is  stimulating.     But  this  is  beside  the  question. 

A  great  many  of  our  most  important  struggle-values  can 
have  no  existence  save  against  the  background  of  the  grega- 
rious state.  Such,  for  example,  are  justice,  generosity, 
honesty,  charity,  etc.  These  could  hardly  have  been  developed 
save  through  struggle  in  the  gregarious  state. 

69 


70  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

The  gregarious  habit  of  mind  often  lies  heavy  upon  us 
and  serves  as  a  check  upon  the  freedom  of  our  movements. 
We  fear  to  be  alone  spiritually  as  well  as  physically. 
Every  leader,  every  iconoclast  has  to  look  back  now 
and  then  to  reassure  himself  that  the  rest  of  humanity 
are  not  far  behind  or  will  soon  be  joined  with  him. 
For  if  they  do  not  come  up  sooner  or  later,  whence  shall  he 
draw  comfort  or  assurance  of  victory  in  his  struggles?  For 
this  reason,  only  the  strong  resolute  spirits  can  embark  in  new 
movements  and  even  they  count  on  the  ultimate  accession  of 
numbers  on  a  more  intimate  basis  than  ever. 

Since  man  is  necessarily  a  gregarious  entity  and  must 
perforce  partake  of  the  benefits  of  gregarious  existence,  the 
individual  cannot  be  absolved  from  a  measure  of  responsibility 
for  the  well-being  of  his  fellows.  On  the  other  hand,  the  natu- 
ral and  perfectly  legitimate  propensity  of  every  individual  to 
struggle  to  the  utmost  limit  of  his  powers  makes  him  unwill- 
ing to  be  delimited  by  the  petty  capacities  of  the  weak  and 
backward.  This  complicates  the  problem  of  political  as  well 
as  economic  concordance. 

2.  What  Makes  a  Nation. 

A  nation  is  a  people  having  a  common  experience  in  pain 
from  which  they  collectively  re-act  or  struggle.  The  degree 
of  their  national  distinctiveness  is  bound  to  be  in  proportion 
to  the  intensity  of  their  collective  experience.  A  nationality 
is  not  destroyed  as  long  as  it  manifests  any  form  of  collective 
struggle  against  extinction. 

3.  Government  and  State. 

The  State  is  the  medium  through  which  the  people  at 
large  or  nation  has  pooled  its  power  for  collective  struggle. 
Technically,  the  Government  is  only  the  executive  power  of 
the  State. 

4.  The  Functions  of  the  State. 

Now  the  functions  of  the  State,  acting  through  the  Gov- 
ernment, are  several,  such  as : 


STRUGGLE  AS  STATE-CRAFT  71 

(a)  Providing  its  citizens  with  means  of  protection  from 
the  aggressions  of  other  nations. 

(b)  Increasing  the  possibilities  of  struggle  for  all. 

(c)  Preventing  the  strong  from  enslaving  or  destroying 
the  weak,  through  the  modification  of  existing  stand- 
ards of  struggle. 

(d)  Increasing  the  possibilities  of  struggle  through  the 
creation  and  maintenance  of  public  facilities. 

(e)  Enforcing  the  observance  of  standards  of  struggle 
attained. 

5.    The  Origin  of  Government. 

Government,  as  the  anarchist  holds,  constitutes  a  form  of 
organized  restriction  of  the  liberties  which  might  otherwise 
be  enjoyed  by  individuals.  Nevertheless,  not  even  the  worst 
of  governments  exist  b}^  usurpation,  but  because  they  grew  out 
of  the  hard  need  of  the  people  for  collective  action.  The 
anarchist  who  believes  that  government  is  unnecessary  be- 
cause every  man  can  act  for  himself  or  by  means  of  a  loose 
communal  organization  which  need  only  be  assembled  when 
concerted  action  is  indispensable  and  not  otherwise,  forgets 
that  that  was  how  government  originated.  In  the  early  begin- 
nings, when  the  need  for  collective  action  was  infrequent  and 
there  was  little  community  of  interest  with  reference  to  any- 
thing except,  perhaps,  defense  against  or  attack  of  a  casual 
common  enemy,  government  was  only  occasional.  Under  such 
conditions,  it  did  not  seem  necessary  to  institutionalize  Gov- 
ernment in  the  forms  of  the  State  to  guard  the  common 
interests  of  individuals. 

In  the  course  of  time,  however,  it  was  felt  more  and 
more  that  such  interests  as  were  common  to  all  could  profitably 
be  left  in  charge  of  one  man  or  King,  acting  with  or  without 
advisers,  who  was  chosen  for  his  ability  in  determining  those 
issues  and  in  taking  such  precautionary  measures  as  every 
individual  would  have  to  do  for  himself  without  the  special 
knowledge,  skill,  power  and  sense  of  responsibility  for  the 
well-being  of  others  that  might  be  expected  of  the  Governing 
Power  or  King.  Government  originated  therefore  as  a  trustee- 
ship for  the  benefit  of  the  people  at  large.    Individuals  might 


72  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

usurp  the  Government  or  turn  its  responsibilities  into  abuses 
but  this  does  not  change  the  nature  of  Government  nor  elimi- 
nate its  uses.  It  might  even  degenerate  into  a  tyranny,  still 
its  uses  as  the  Government  of  the  people  would  outweigh  its 
abuses;  and  this  is  the  secret  of  the  power  of  all  forms  of 
despotisms.  Where  the  abuses  of  Government  patently  out- 
weigh its  uses,  it  lapses  again  into  a  state  of  anarchy,  and 
the  probabilities  are  strong  that  the  head  or  heads  will  not 
long  remain  the  seat  of  power  but  will  be  swept  along  in  the 
maelstrom  of  destruction.  Abuse  of  Government,  therefore, 
destroys  itself. 

Government,  then,  is  really  a  means  of  extending  indi- 
vidual struggle.  To  be  sure,  it  involves  the  individual  in 
restrictions.  But  in  this  respect  it  is  not  different  than  the 
checks  which  every  man  puts  upon  himself  in  order  to  retain 
his  health,  say,  and  get  the  most  out  of  his  powers;  the  regi- 
men of  the  athlete  training  for  a  great  test  of  his  powers.  In 
short,  government  theoretically  extends  the  individual's 
struggle  by  organizing,  economizing  and  helping  to  protect 
him  in  such  of  his  relations  or  activities  as  are  susceptible  of 
mass  treatment. 

6.    Political  Liberty. 

To  decry  government  because  it  limits  our  liberties  is 
not  consistent  if  we  are  desirous  of  its  benefits.  There  is  no 
absolute  liberty  in  the  sense  of  being  entirely  free  from  obli- 
gations contingent  upon  our  actions.  The  minute  we  act  at  all, 
we  are  at  once  unconsciously  involved  in  a  whole  chain  of 
consequences  and  inhibitions  for  which  we  become  responsi- 
ble both  to  ourselves  and  to  others.  What  does  the  word 
Liberty  mean  then  ?  It  really  does  not  mean  anything,  unless 
it  means  liberty  to  struggle;  and  this  is  what  Government 
helps  us  to  further.  Viewed  from  this  angle.  Government  does 
not  deprive  us  of  liberty  but  extends  its  possibilities.  We 
cannot  escape  this  conclusion  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  word 
''liberty"  is  really  another  word,  an  approximation,  a  euphe- 
mism for  ''opportunity  to  struggle."  Whatever  extends  our 
opportunities  to  struggle  extends  our  liberties;  whatever 
limits  our  opportunities  to  struggle,  abbreviates  our  liberties. 


STRUGGLE  AS  STATE-CRAFT  73 

This  is  why  men  will  stake  all,  will  give  up  life  itself,  in 
furtherance  of  the  liberty  to  struggle.  But  it  cannot  be  said 
that  a  government  existing  by  the  will  of  the  people  and 
operating  to  organize  and  protect  the  people  in  its  most 
essential  functions,  is  inconsistent  with  liberty.  On  the  con- 
trary. Government  is  a  necessity  born  of  the  will  of  the  people 
for  the  maximum  of  liberty  to  struggle  for  all.  It  is  true- 
however,  that  Government  also  operates,  through  its  laws  or 
edicts,  to  curtail  liberty  by  raising  the  standard  of  struggle 
and  enforcing  it,  although  all  are  not  prepared  for  it. 

7.    Genesis  of  a  Mining  Camp. 

To  those  who  are  accustomed  to  think  of  Struggle  in 
terms  of  fisticuffs  and  the  sword,  the  assertion  that  Govern- 
ment is  born  of  the  Will  to  Struggle  will  sound  like  a  paradox. 
I  shall  perhaps  be  asked,  How  can  you  deny  that  there  is  more 
struggle  in  one  day  of  life  in  a  small  mining-camp  than  in  a 
week  of  life  in  one  of  your  large,  well-governed  cities?  But 
let  us  study  the  genesis  of  the  ''wild  and  wooly"  mining-camp 
and  see  for  ourselves. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  in  the  beginning  of  the 
history  of  the  mining-camp,  practically  none  of  the  prospectors 
has  anything.  This,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  no  standard  of 
struggle  has  been  attained  as  yet,  leads  to  the  feeling  of  reck- 
lessness and  insecurity;  recklessness,  because  the  prospector 
has  as  yet  nothing  to  lose  save  his  life,  which,  as  I  have 
already  shown,  is  not  as  important  as  struggle;  insecurity, 
because  the  feeling  of  recklessness  is  in  the  air  and  there  is 
no  settled  standard  of  struggle  upon  which  anybody  can  rely. 

Some  years  pass.  Conditions  have  changed.  Standards 
of  struggle  have  been  evolved.  Various  and  sundry  of  the 
new-comers  have  amassed  fortunes  or  have  acquired  various 
means  of  livelihood  and  profit.  The  prospector  now  has 
something  to  lose.  He  wishes  to  safeguard  his  possessions, 
the  fruits  of  his  struggle.  Nor  does  he  wish  to  risk  his  life 
so  readily.  There  is  no  necessity  for  it  and  life  has  become 
worth  while.  His  struggle  henceforth  becomes  more  subtle, 
occupies  a  longer  frontage,  entails  a  more  complicated  attack 
and  defense.    Laws  are  promulgated  expressive  of  new  stand- 


74  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

ards  of  struggle.  New-comers  are  compelled  to  subscribe 
to  them.  Functionaries  are  vested  with  power  to  enforce 
them.  The  mining-camp  has  undeniably  reformed  and  become 
'* better" — by  extending  its  struggle  through  Government. 
The  petty  form  of  struggle  involved  in  thievery,  murder  and 
violence  gives  way  to  the  almost  intangible  struggles  of 
industrial  aggression,  the  battle  for  franchises,  political 
forays,  etc.  What  has  come  over  the  mining-camp?  Has  it 
reformed?    Has  its  struggle  diminished ? 

8.    Foundations  of  Aristocracy. 

Aristocracies  spring  out  of  the  need  of  a  nation  for  extra- 
ordinary service.  In  such  circumstances,  the  ablest  and  most 
aggressive  will  establish  themselves  with  specially  acquired 
prerogatives  or  will  be  established  by  the  state. 

That  part  of  the  population  which  answers  best  to  the 
national  need  in  any  struggle  is  in  line  for  such  ennoblement. 
This  ennoblement  may  take  the  form  of  enrollment  in  the 
vested  aristocracy  of  the  country  upon  a  hereditary  basis  or 
it  may  take  the  form  of  a  more  personal  distinction,  depending 
upon  the  traditions  of  the  country  in  question.  To  deserve 
this  distinction,  however,  the  efforts  of  the  aspirant  must  have 
been  in  line  with  the  recognized  need  of  the  nation.  On  this 
account,  it  sometimes  happens  that  the  class  most  singled  out 
for  distinction  by  one  nation  happens  to  be  most  despised  in 
another. 

Take,  for  example,  the  Chinese.  Many  are  accustomed  to 
think  of  them  as  effete,  timid,  unreliable.  Nothing  can  be 
further  from  the  truth.  The  fact  is  the  great  body  of  the 
Chinese  people  have  been  at  peace  for  many  centuries.  They 
have  been  a  merchant  people.  Consequently  there  has  been 
no  necessity  for  the  growth  of  a  military  nobility.  The  strug- 
gle of  the  nation  in  the  latter  centuries  flowed  along  what  we 
would  call  peaceful  channels.  Under  the  sway  of  peace,  there 
was  no  need  for  the  soldier.  The  latter  was  therefore  despised. 
The  merchant  and  civil  officer  or  mandarin  attained  to  distinc- 
tion and  nobility.  The  best  practices  and  traditions  centered 
among  them  while  the  soldiery  were  held  in  contempt. 

During  the  same  period  the  Japanese,  on  the  other  hand. 


STRUGGLE  AS  STATE-CRAFT  75 

were  constantly  at  war,  civilly  and  externally.  The  national 
necessity  could  best  be  served  only  by  those  adept  at  fighting. 
The  country  was  rife  with  conflict.  Naturally,  only  that  part 
of  the  population  attaining  distinction  in  war  became  estab- 
lished as  the  nobility  of  the  nation.  A  true  Samurai  accounted 
it  unworthy  to  even  know  the  value  of  a  coin.  Trade  and 
industry  was  relegated  to  the  base  and  ignoble  and,  in  the 
natural  order  of  things,  fell  into  disrepute. 

Aristocracies  grow  out  of  the  hard  necessity  of  the  nation, 
The  center  of  struggle  changes  in  different  periods  during  the 
life  of  a  nation  and  begets  aristocracies  of  a  corresponding 
type.  Thus,  for  example,  even  among  an  expatriated  nation 
like  the  Jews,  the  institution  of  aristocracy  was  not  absent. 
The  class  that  attained  to  this  distinction  during  the  earlier 
days  of  the  dispersion  was  the  rabbi  or  teacher-class. 

The  rabbis  of  those  days  were  not  merely  theologians. 
They  were  also  the  political  leaders  of  the  people.  Realizing 
that  survival  by  a  race  in  dispersion  could  only  be  achieved 
through  intellectual  discipline,  they  sedulously  maintained 
the  ethnic  distinctiveness  of  the  Jews  by  keeping  fresh  their 
peculiar  laws,  customs  and  traditions  and  renewing  their 
national  hopes  in  one  guise  or  another.  The  Rabbis  thus 
came  to  be  regarded  as  the  fighting  vanguard  of  the  nation. 
They  were  the  ruling  aristocracy  of  Israel  in  exile.  All  that 
concerned  the  nation  passed  through  their  hands.  It  was 
they  who  taught  that  the  ignorant  in  the  Jewish  national 
crisis  was  as  reprehensible  as  the  traitor.  It  was  they  who 
studied,  intensified  and  refined  the  racial  potentialities  of  the 
people  to  the  end  that  the  separatist  tendency  present  in  the 
Jews  should  not  be  overwhelmed  by  the  disintegrating  pres- 
sure of  the  whole  alien  world.  It  was  they  who  changed  the 
tactics  of  the  headstrong  Hebrews  of  the  times  of  Josephus 
into  the  patient  shrug,  the  smile  of  long-suffering,  which 
became  the  badge  of  the  truly  resistant  Jew  of  the  middle  ages. 
The  Rabbinite  was  cherished  by  the  mass  of  the  Jews  as  the 
pinnacle  of  attainment  and,  indeed,  in  many  communities  they 
had,  up  to  very  recent  times,  absolute  civil  as  well  as  religious 
authority. 

In  our  time,  up  to  the  recrudescence  of  the  war  spirit  of 
which  we  are  witness,  aristocracies  were  being  recruited  from 


76  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

among  those  who  distinguished  themselves  in  the  other 
forms  of  struggle  with  which  the  world  is  rife  such  as  science, 
commerce,  industry,  art.  As  the  world  grows  in  experience, 
the  vital  importance  of  attaining  proficiency  in  these  forms 
of  struggle  becomes  more  and  more  apparent  to  all  nations. 
It  has  become  apparent  that  wars  are  not  decided  on  military 
fields  of  battles  only  but  that  the  onset  penetrates  into  the 
whole  life  and  past  of  the  nation. 

Aristocracies  by  descent  are  under  the  odium  of  being 
unmerited.  To  be  sure,  aristocracies  are  often  so  constituted 
that  they  survive  the  service  which  begot  them,  but  this 
cannot  and  should  not  impugn  the  original  title  to  their 
patents  of  nobility,  even  though  the  standard  of  struggle  by 
which  they  were  attained  has  long  changed.  Nor  should  we 
harbor  the  delusion  that  democracies  do  not  permit  of  aris- 
tocracies. Aristocracies  may  be  recruited  from  among  great 
democrats  just  as  from  others  who  have  signalized  themselves 
by  distinction  in  struggle.  All  that  a  democracy  can  do  is 
to  provide  for  one  standard  of  struggle  for  all  under  the  law. 
But  persons  being  born  unequal,  everything  else  is  unequal. 
Democracies  will  allow  these  inequalities  to  assert  themselves 
freely  and  in  this  way,  cultivate  an  interesting  and  varied 
aristocracy  of  its  own  for  those  that  have  eyes  to  discern  it. 
Democracies  will  allow  inequalities  to  assert  themselves 
freely — this  is  of  the  very  nature  of  democracy — but  they 
will  intervene  where  the  inequality  in  question  leads  to  an 
abuse  or  violation  of  the  common  standard  of  struggle  to 
the  permanent  detriment  of  the  unequal.  Hereditary  aristoc- 
racies, as  a  rule,  are  not  conducive  to  the  rearing  of  the  most 
self-reliant  proletariat;  they  lead  to  the  growth  of  a  class 
often  notable  for  its  sense  of  public  responsibility,  it  is  true, 
but  having  a  tendency  to  supplant  the  sense  of  respon- 
sibility in  the  plain  people;  whereas  a  democracy,  if  it  stands 
for  anything,  stands  for  universal  responsibility. 

9.  Despotisms  and  Democracies. 

If  we  only  applied  the  test  of  utilitarianism  to  govern- 
mental systems,  I  strongly  suspect  that  we  would  have  to 
yield  the  palm  to  the  despotic  form  of  government.     All 


STRUGGLE  AS  STATE-CRAFT  77 

political  despotisms  are  fundamentally  *' benevolent  despot- 
isms." The  exceptions  are  simply  abortions  and  do  not  dis- 
prove the  rule.  Despotisms  are  admirably  suited  to  the 
handling  of  large  masses.  It  may  be  that  the  subjects  of  a 
despotism  do  not  have  the  individual  sense  of  universal  respon- 
sibility ascribed  to  citizens  of  a  democracy,  but  on  the  other 
hand,  there  is  a  certain  assurance  of  limited  responsibility 
from  which  there  is  no  escape.  This,  coupled  with  the  docility 
to  authority  enforced  by  despotisms,  makes  a  greater  mobility 
possible  in  the  employment  of  masses. 

With  the  growth  of  sensitiveness,  however,  the  world  has 
half  consciously  groped  its  way  to  the  position  that  human 
worth  is  not  wholly  expressed  in  employment;  nor  is  efficiency 
under  all  conditions  the  sum  of  life.  A  measure  of  reverence 
is  due  human  sensitiveness.    And  so  democracy  was  born. 

Democracy  in  a  state  means  universal  responsibility.  A 
democratic  government  means  one  that  is  founded  upon  a 
universal  or  general  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  welfare 
of  the  state.  Strictly  speaking,  a  democracy  cannot  exist 
simply  by  the  passive  consent  of  the  governed.  A  democracy 
exists  by  the  active  will  of  the  governed,  not  by  mere  suffer- 
ance. That  is  why  a  democracy  is  the  most  difficult  form  of 
government  to  maintain  and  the  last  to  be  evolved  successfully. 
A  democracy  cannot  be  had  simply  for  the  asking.  There  must 
be  an  active  and  continuous  demand  for  it  and  an  unweary 
vigilance  in  its  maintenance.  Otherwise,  it  is  bound  to  relapse 
into  anarchy,  dictatorship  or  plutocracy. 

In  Russia,  for  example,  until  recently,  we  had  an  instance 
of  government  by  the  consent  of  the  governed,  in  the  passive 
sense.  The  consent  was  there,  otherwise  the  government 
could  not  have  existed  at  all.  But  there  was  no  general  respon- 
sibility for  well-being.  The  responsibility  was  not  in  the 
mass  but  in  a  few.  It  makes  all  the  difference  in  the  world 
whether  a  government  is  founded  upon  apathy  resident  in 
the  Russian  peasant  or  the  challenging  interest  of  the  Ameri- 
can proletariat.  From  the  nature  of  things  each  must  have  a 
government  representing  what  he  is.  Slaves  cannot  have  free 
government.  Freemen  cannot  be  governed  upon  terms  of 
slavery.    In  other  words,  it  is  the  sensitiveness  to  their  condi- 


78  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

tion  as  a  mass  which  is  the  deciding  element  as  to  the  degree 
of  democracy  which  they  can  attain. 

10.    What  Is  a  Democracy? 

A  kingship  does  not  necessarily  preclude  a  democracy; 
but  it  militates  against  the  democratic  condition.  For,  as  the 
old  prophet  Samuel  pointed  out  when  the  Hebrews  asked  him 
to  choose  a  king  for  them:  ''He  will  take  your  sons  and  appoint 
them  unto  him,  for  his  chariots,  and  to  be  his  horsemen;  and 
they  shall  run  before  his  chariots;  and  he  will  appoint  them 
unto  him  for  captains  of  thousands  and  captains  of  fifties; 
and  he  will  set  some  to  plow  his  ground, ' '  etc. 

In  other  words,  a  king  must  have  his  entourage,  and  the 
army  of  the  people  may  become  his  personal  or  dynastic  body- 
guard. Both  king  and  court,  in  default  of  popular  endorse- 
ment and  support,  naturally  resort  to  the  weapons  with  which 
they  are  entrusted  to  maintain  themselves  in  their  difficult 
and  dangerous  position.  Nor  does  the  evil  stop  there.  The 
people  at  large,  if  they  do  not  revolt,  soon  learn  that  the 
real  power  does  not  proceed  from  them  and  with  this  con- 
sciousness in  them,  they  lose  their  sense  of  responsibility  for 
the  well-being  of  the  state  which  is  the  very  crux  of  democ- 
racy. They  school  themselves  to  lean  upon  those  in  power 
for  the  solution  of  all  questions  and  to  this  extent  become 
indifferent  citizens,  lacking  in  virility  and  aggressiveness,  and 
undermining  the  vitality  of  the  state. 

But  it  is  better  not  to  be  too  dogmatic  about  it.  There 
have  been,  and  still  are,  kings  as  heads  of  democracies.  And 
there  have  been  so-called  democracies  in  which  there  has  been 
more  puffed  up  pride,  callousness,  slavery  and  corrup- 
tion than  in  many  an  unassuming  little  monarchy.  Nay, 
there  have  been  monarchies  in  which  there  has  been  the 
true  spirit  of  democracy — in  which  the  people  were  conscious 
of  their  failings  and  their  responsibilities,  while  there  have 
been  so-called  democracies  that  bragged  and  bragged  eter- 
nally and  yet  lived  by  force  and  fraud  and  relished  it  withal. 
Governmental  forms  are  important  in  maintaining  a  democ- 
racy, but  a  sensitive  responsibility  as  expressed  in  the  life  of 
a  people  are  more  important.  Contempt  of  kings  and  self- 
indulgence  do  not  make  democracy. 


STRUGGLE  AS  STATE-CRAFT  79 

Despite  the  outward  trappings  of  republicanism  and 
democracy,  when  individual  families  are  able,  in  the  language 
of  Isaiah,  to  "join  house  to  house  and  field  to  field  until  they 
are  left  alone  within  the  land,"  and  build  up  great  estates 
upon  which,  through  economic  pressure,  they  can  force  the 
great  body  of  free  citizens  to  labor  for  subsistence,  when  the 
mass  of  the  people  toil  without  ownership  or  title,  when 
extreme  opulence  goes  with  extreme  poverty  and  callousness 
with  misery,  then,  no  matter  what  we  may  call  the  government 
under  which  this  takes  place,  it  is  no  longer  a  democracy; 
and,  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  there  is  not  and  cannot 
be  justice  in  it,  nor  attachment  by  the  people  at  large  to 
the  soil  of  that  land  nor  individual  responsibility  for  the  well- 
being  of  the  state ;  and  the  nation  must  become  enfeebled,  and 
its  democracy  a  mere  shell  without  content. 

Whenever  this  disparity  takes  place  in  a  democracy,  the 
only  possible  healthy  reaction  is  to  so  modify  the  common 
standard  of  struggle  as  to  place  a  greater  burden  of  struggle 
upon  the  rich  and  in  so  doing  increase  the  possibilities  of 
struggle  for  the  poor.  This  is  the  only  way  of  salvation  for 
the  state  as  a  whole,  or,  as  the  Bible  has  it,  "These  are  the 
laws  by  which  ye  shall  live  and  not  die!" 

There  can  be  no  universal  responsibility  in  the  political 
sense  without  sensitiveness  that  is  universal.  The  degree 
of  democracy  obtaining  in  any  country,  irrespective  of  its 
political  forms  and  catch-words,  must  be  dependent  upon  the 
degree  of  sensitiveness  evolved  therein.  It  is  correct,  there- 
fore, to  consider  democracy  as  the  highest  expression  and 
indication  of  civilization.  For  what  is  civilization  save  sensi- 
tiveness? A  nation  is  civilized  or  uncivilized  in  proportion 
to  its  sensitiveness  to  pain. 

Generally,  sensitiveness  to  pain  goes  hand  in  hand  with 
sensitiveness  to  all  phenomena  including  what  we  call  inani- 
mate life  and  the  intricate  forces  of  nature  as  expressed  in 
science.  But  the  latter  is  not  the  indispensable  prerequisite 
of  the  state  of  civilization.  Even  though  the  cannibal  is  noto- 
riously ignorant  of  the  science  of  physics  and  chemistry  (as 
many  of  us  are)  it  is  not  because  of  this  that  he  is  adjudged 
uncivilized.  So  a  nation  may  be  ever  so  proficient  in  the 
technique  of  art,  science  and  industry  and  not  be  as  civilized 


80  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

as  a  simple  little  shepherd  folk  with  its  one  emphasis  upon  the 
dignity  of  human  worth.  This  truth  is  not  always  understood 
but  it  is  universally  felt:  Witness  the  predominant  emphasis 
by  all  belligerents  in  the  Great  War,  over  and  above  all 
attributes  of  proficiency,  upon  the  humanity  or  lack  of 
humanity  in  the  one  or  the  other!  This,  indeed,  is  the  one 
test  of  the  message  of  civilization  which  each  of  the  bellig- 
erents professes  to  bring;  and  it  is  by  this  that  each  will  be 
judged;  and  by  this,  also,  as  to  the  degree  of  democracy 
evolved  by  each. 

There  is  an  impression  in  wide  circles  in  this  country 
that  democracy  means  the  gratification  of  the  greatest  num- 
ber. Hence,  when  in  a  given  community  a  party  of  reform 
is  ousted  from  office  by  a  landslide  of  reactionary  votes,  our 
reforming  brethren  feel  that  they  have  no  leg  left  to  stand  on. 
Apparently,  the  democracy  has  elected  to  revert  to  lower 
standards.  But,  as  I  take  it,  democracy  is  not  merely  synony- 
mous with  numbers.  Democracy  stands  for  numbers  in  the 
attitude  of  striving  upward.  It  is  not  constituted  by  majori- 
ties in  the  key  of  indifference  or  retrogression  but  in  respon- 
sibility and  progress.  As  we  cannot  be  trusted,  however,  to 
weigh  votes  but  only  to  count  them,  we  must  continue  to  do 
the  best  we  can  with  the  approximations  afforded  by  numbers, 
unreliable  as  they  often  prove  to  be.  One  advantage  we  still 
have — that  victory  gravitates  to  the  most  sensitive.  But  this 
implies  that  democracy  can  only  be  had  at  the  price  of  eternal 
sensitiveness. 

11.    The  Socialist  "State." 

As  yet,  the  socialist  state  is  only  a  state  of  mind.  Li 
fact,  the  whole  socialist  program  is  in  a  state  of  flux  and 
varies  in  different  countries  and  periods.  It  may  almost  be 
said  that  every  socialist  has  a  different  conception  of  the 
implications  of  the  socialist  state.  Historically,  socialism 
has  been  interpreted  by  its  exponents  as  communism,  collec- 
tivism, nationalism,  social  democracy,  monarchic  socialism, 
anarchism,  radicalism,  state  ownership,  Bolshevism,  cosmo- 
politanism, and  simply  Socialism  as  a  Principle  of  Action, 
whatever  that  means.  There  was  a  time  when  it  threatened  to 


STRUGGLE  AS  STATE-CRAFT  81 

become  an  exact  science.  This  was  during  the  period  of  Karl 
Marx.  The  latter  imagined  that  he  had  rescued  it  from  Utopi- 
an ism.  Having  failed  of  conforming  to  scientific  formula, 
socialism  became  a  form  of  opportunism  with  a  trend  toward 
an  economic  system  upon  which  there  is  yet  no  common  agree- 
ment among  socialists.  Socialism  does  have  a  distinct  tend- 
ency or  direction,  however.  That  tendency  or  direction  is 
toward  the  improvement  of  conditions  for  the  laborer  and  the 
increase  of  wages. 

Hence,  the  socialist  conception  is  not  really  of  a  state 
but  a  negation  of  the  present  state.  It  is  a  criticism.  As  such 
it  is  often  of  practical  value,  depending  upon  circumstances, 
but  its  chief  service  is  in  the  direction  of  increasing  sensitive- 
ness to  the  yearnings  of  the  working  class. 

Unfortunately,  however,  in  the  popular  mind,  socialism 
cannot  be  detached  from  the  philosophy  of  utopianism  in 
which  it  was  cradled.  A  utopia,  by  the  way,  is  a  state  in 
which  achievement  may  be  had  without  pain  or  struggle. 
The  Utopian  element  in  socialism  lies  in  the  assumption  that 
the  happiness  of  mankind  is  based  upon  economic  causes  and 
that  economic  mal-adjustment  is  at  the  root  of  whatever  pain 
there  is  in  the  world;  that  we  do  not  live  in  order  to  struggle, 
but  struggle  in  order  to  live;  and,  therefore,  that  the  assur- 
ance of  an  easy  livelihood  is  the  antidote  to  human  pain,  and 
is  realizable  thru  socialism. 

One  would  imagine  that  the  socialist,  because  of  this 
materialistic  reading  of  the  scheme  of  things,  would  be  an 
avaricious,  money  grubbing  sort  of  a  fellow  who  spends  his 
days  and  nights  amassing  wealth.  Actually,  however,  he  is 
apt  to  spend  his  time  and  his  substance  trying  to  educate  the 
masses  to  their  best  economic  interests  and,  in  the  doing, 
to  invite  trouble  with  the  propertied  classes  and  the  police, 
to  his  own  economic  loss,  all  unaware  of  his  inconsistency  on 
his  main  proposition.  But,  although  inconsistent  on  the  main 
proposition,  he  will  try  to  be  devilishly  consistent  in  collateral 
matters.  Thus,  our  bred-in-the-bone  socialist  is  at  war  with 
religion  because  he  will  have  no  other  ideal  capable  of  sup- 
planting socialism  in  the  imaginings  of  the  proletariat.  He 
is  no  respecter  of  marriage  ties  because  it  is  inaccessible  to 


82  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

the  economic  formula  and  disproves  the  sufficiency  of  it.  He 
spurns  patriotism  for  the  same  reason. 

In  short,  socialism  today  is  not  merely  an  economic 
remedy  as  originally  advanced,  but  a  philosophy  of  life 
closely  akin  to  a  religious  cult,  like  the  Hindue  Suttee,  in  which 
all  other  values  are  treated  as  non-existent  or  subordinate,  to 
be  cast  upon  the  flames  of  economic  sufficiency  or  socialism. 

Chief  among  the  sacrifices  upon  the  funeral  pyre  of  social- 
ism is  nationalism.  From  the  socialist  point  of  view  national- 
ism has  no  valid  existence  and  this,  despite  the  whole  course 
of  human  development  and  this  Great  War  which  is  pre- 
eminently a  war  of  racial  aspirations.  Socialism  has  become 
so  enmeshed  and  tangled  in  the  terminology  of  its  argumen- 
tation, that  curiously  enough,  on  the  question  of  nationalism, 
socialism  has  lost  its  character  as  a  movement  of  protest 
against  oppression,  has  assumed  an  attitude  of  indifference, 
and  upon  occasion,  as  in  Russia,  has  even  played  the  tyrant 
with  the  fates  of  peoples. 

As  a  practical  measure,  socialism  is  not  nearly  as  danger- 
ous as  it  seems  because,  whatever  its  doctrines,  in  practice  it 
must  march  with  the  normal  requirements  of  human  beings, 
and,  insofar  as  it  is  not  practical,  can  have  no  existence.  Inso- 
far as  it  has  elements  of  helpfulness,  it  is  bound  to  be  absorbed 
in  the  progress  of  the  world. 

Socialism  becomes  a  national  menace  only  in  its  attitude 
of  separatism.  German  socialism  never  had  that  character. 
The  famous  Erfuhrt  Program,  for  example,  was  not  merely  an 
economic  declaration,  but  a  German  national  manifesto,  aim- 
ing, among  other  things,  to  enfranchise  the  German  proletariat 
by  universal,  equal  and  secret  ballot,  which  it  did  not  then 
and  still  does  not  possess;  to  obtain  the  right  of  self-govern- 
ment; to  obtain  the  right  of  free  utterance;  woman  suffrage; 
secularization  of  education;  compulsory  education  at  public 
expense;  judicial  reforms;  a  graduated  income  tax;  labor  laws, 
embodying  the  fixing  of  a  normal  working  day;  prohibition  of 
child  labor  under  a  certain  age,  legal  equality  of  classes  of 
labor  as  between  each  other,  sanitary  working  conditions,  con- 
firmation of  the  rights  of  association,  industrial  insurance, 
etc.  All  these  demands  aimed  at  the  reform  of  local  abuses 
in  Germany,  the  grandoise  preamble  of  the  manifesto  not- 


STRUGGLE  AS  STATE-CRAFT  83 

withstanding,  and  were  thoroughly  German  in  character. 
German  socialism  has  since  become  even  more  national,  if 
anything.  The  cosmopolitanism  of  some  of  its  denationalized 
Jewish  projectors  has  long  since  given  way  to  a  hardly  dis- 
cernible internationalism. 

It  is  only  socialism  outside  of  Germany  that  conceives 
itself  at  war  with  national  evaluation. 

In  normal  times,  one  may  laugh  at  the  denationalizing 
tendency  in  socialism  because  such  a  tendency  runs  counter 
to  the  eternal  constitution  of  humanity.  But  in  times  of  inter- 
national crisis,  the  separatist,  anti-national  character  of  soci- 
alism, as  well  as  its  opportunism,  constitute  a  source  of  danger 
and,  if  not  checked,  may  result  in  national  disaster. 

Despite  the  mass  of  evidence  patently  indicating,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  that  socialism  is  but  a  very  shallow  reading  of 
the  motivity  of  human  existence,  it  is  clear  that  socialists 
everywhere  are  under  the  impression  that  this  war  will  usher 
the  socialist  state  into  being — an  impression  that  is  gaining 
ground  everywhere,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  belligerent  govern- 
ments have  seized  many  public  and  private  utilities,  are  exer- 
cising control  over  them,  and  are  regulating  prices.  But,  as  I 
will  try  to  prove  in  the  next  chapter,  whatever  economic 
advantages  are  derived  from  these  measures  are  not  attribu- 
table to  the  approximation  to  the  so-called  socialist  state,  but 
to  the  advantages  of  the  rule  of  monopoly  under  state  control. 


CHAPTER  V. 
THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE 
1.    Struggle  as  an  Economic  Factor. 

THE  economist  habitually  sees  all  struggle  as  an  evil 
springing  out  of  *  *  the  strife  for  the  economic  necessities 
of  life."  He  traces  the  red  herring  of  economic  want 
through  all  the  pages  of  history.  He  hints  that  even  the  semi- 
mythical  war  of  the  Greeks  and  Trojans  had  the  same  origin; 
that  the  wars  of  the  Romans,  the  migrations  of  the  races  of 
Western  Europe,  the  crusades  of  the  Middle  Ages,  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution  and,  of  course,  the  Great  War  of  to-day,  are 
born  of  extreme  economic  necessity  or  pressure.  To  the  same 
cause  he  attributes  practically  all  human  ailments  and  Pain 
itself. 

Now  our  knowledge  of  that  human  nature  which  partakes 
of  universal  pain  and  struggle,  should  teach  us,  that  although 
economic  want  may  have  been  the  moving  cause  in  one  or 
more  of  the  great  changes  in  history,  it  need  not  necessarily 
have  been  the  cause.  The  unrest  in  peoples  leading  to  wars, 
invasions  and  changed  domiciles,  develops  in  the  fullness  of 
time  and  is  born  of  the  yearnings  present  in  all  that  know 
pain,  just  as  the  country-boy,  though  sure  of  his  three  square 
meals  on  the  farm,  may  run  off  to  try  the  hazards  of  the  city. 
Does  he  flee  from  economic  necessity?  Does  the  prophet 
preach  from  economic  motives'?  If  so,  what  is  his  economic 
gain?  Does  the  eloping  couple  flee  from  economic  motives? 
Does  the  Indian,  chanting  his  death-hymn  at  the  stake? 

Doubtless  there  are  innumerable  instances  in  the  world 
from  time  immemorial  of  conflicts  carried  on  apparently  for 
no  other  object  than  some  economic  gain.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  what  of  the  obstinate  struggles  that  are  born,  appar- 
ently, of  sheer  rivalry,  of  reaction  against  any  form  of  estab- 
lished pre-eminence,  of  complete  sacrifice  of  the  present,  strug- 
gles of  faith,  struggles  for  the  vindication  of  ideas,  the  pain 

84 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE         85 

and  struggle  of  love,  of  aggrandizement,  the  struggle  for 
fame  and  so  on? 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  struggle  for  economic  better- 
ment, to  be  sure.  But  ere  the  struggle  for  economic  better- 
ment came  the  consciousness  of  pain  and  the  will  to  struggle 
— sometimes  for  economic  betterment,  sometimes  for  some- 
thing entirely  different.  In  short.  Struggle  does  not  exist 
because  of  the  need  for  economic  betterment  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  striving  for  economic  betterment  results  from  the 
existence  of  the  impulse  to  struggle.  Something  of  the  bitter- 
ness of  struggle  in  the  economic  field  would  evaporate,  if  it 
was  more  generally  known  and  felt  that  we  do  not  struggle  in 
order  to  live  but  live  in  order  to  struggle.  Where  Struggle 
has  reached  such  a  low  ebb  that  it  is  maintained  literally  in 
order  to  live,  it  is  time  for  the  State  to  intervene  because  its 
interests  are  in  jeopardy;  for  it  cannot  afford  to  allow  the 
strong  to  destroy  the  weak  or  to  permanently  stand  in  the 
way  of  the  weak.  Struggle  does  not  mean  destruction  or  per- 
manent obstruction.  It  means  a  certain  equilibrium  of  forces 
favorable  to  the  development  of  strong  characters  anywhere 
and  everywhere.    Struggle  means  struggle — not  domination. 

Capital  recognizes  the  test  of  Struggle  and  points  to  the 
fact  that  its  strongest  exemplars  have  risen  from  the  ranks 
and,  in  any  case,  have  their  origin  in  distinguished  struggle. 
Labor  recognizes  the  principal  of  Struggle,  for  it  predicates 
its  demands  upon  a  foundation  of  value  given  which  is  another 
word  for  struggle.  It  therefore  behooves  us  to  weigh  the 
demands  of  both  sides  in  the  light  of  the  common  standard 
of  struggle  obtaining  to-day  and  judge  wherein  it  falls  below 
the  standard  of  struggle  or  wherein  the  standard  of  struggle 
is  no  longer  equitable  to  either  side  and  should  be  modified. 
The  substitution  of  the  economic  principle  as  the  cause  of 
struggle  introduces  a  sinister  motivity  into  human  affairs 
which  only  embitters  and  befogs  the  whole  consideration  of 
the  subject. 

The  fashion  to  find  economic  motives  for  everything  has 
become  so  prevalent  that  they  are  assiduously  dug  up  and 
established  as  the  deux  machina  even  in  such  instances  where 
the  economic  condition  at  the  time  was  by  no  means  acute.  For 
example,  we  are  even  told  that  our  own  Civil  War  was  due 


86  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

to  economic  conflicts  of  interest,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  if 
the  South  had  not  attempted  to  secede  the  war  would  not 
have  taken  place.  Through  the  introduction  of  slavery  two 
hostile  points  of  view,  born  of  conflicting  traditions — the 
Puritan  and  the  Cavalier — came  into  sharp  antagonism  until 
it  seemed  that  each  side  was  trying  to  dominate  the  way-of- 
life  of  the  other.  Neither  would  give  way,  and  the  South 
therefore  chose  to  secede.  But  secession  meant  that  there- 
after the  nation  was  to  be  impaired  in  its  collective  capacity 
to  struggle.  Therefore  war  became  inevitable.  The  economic 
gain  to  the  North  was  not  an  issue  during  the  war  and  cannot 
therefore  be  made  an  issue  after  the  war. 

The  American  Revolution  was  distinctly  a  struggle  for 
Struggle's  sake — a  struggle  against  tyranny.  The  cause  of 
the  Erench  Revolution  was  not  essentially  different,  although 
economic  abuses  had  much  to  do  with  it.  The  rallying  cry 
of  the  populace.  Liberty,  Fraternity,  Equality,  does  not  nec- 
essarily pivot  around  economic  considerations.  It  is  true 
that  economic  conditions  for  the  poor  of  France  was  very  bad, 
but  it  was  not  the  hungry  that  brought  on  the  revolution. 
It  was  brought  on  by  those  who  thought,  by  those  who, 
whether  hungry  or  not,  realized  that  the  channels  for  the 
opportunity  to  struggle — sometimes  called  Liberty — had  been 
gutted,  and  proceeded  to  enlist  the  economically  disaffected. 

One  who  is  actuated  by  the  wish  for  his  economic  better- 
ment does  not  attempt  to  alleviate  his  condition  through  the 
far-fetched  method  of  national  revolt.  On  the  contrary,  he 
proceeds  to  amass  a  fortune.  The  agitator  who  spends  his 
days  and  nights  demonstrating  that  the  economic  principle  is 
paramount,  is  belied  by  his  own  actions.  The  logical  thing 
for  him  to  do  would  be  to  abandon  his  profitless  propaganda 
and  follow  in  the  foot-steps  of  the  Rothschilds,  the  Rocke- 
fellers and  the  Morgans  of  the  world.  The  fact  that  he  does 
not  do  this  shows  that  the  actuating  principle  in  the  world 
is  not  quite  what  he  professes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  revolu- 
tions are  not  engendered  by  the  economically  disaffected,  the 
proletariat,  but  by  part  of  the  upper  classes  moving  against 
the  other  part. 

The  history  of  the  world  shows  repeated  instances  of 
struggles  disassociated  from  economic  causes.    The  Crusades 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE         87 

is  one,  notwithstanding  that  the  contact  of  races  brought  in  its 
wake  an  increase  of  trade  with  the  Orient.  Another  note- 
worthy example  is  shown  by  the  Jews,  a  people  supposed  to 
be  keenly  alive  to  economic  advantage,  who  have  withstood 
the  pressure  of  the  world  for  two  thousand  years  under  the 
most  harrowing  conditions,  although  they  might  have  enjoyed 
every  economic  advantage  if  they  had  been  willing  to  suscribe 
to  principles  in  no  wise  injurious  economically. 

Doubtless,  I  shall  be  told  that  the  present  World- War  is 
a  clear  instance  of  a  great  historical  event  brought  on  by 
economic  causes.  Nothing  is  further  from  the  truth,  however. 
K  labor  as  labor  has  no  cause  to  seek  war,  neither  has  capital. 
The  life  of  any  mercantile  or  industrial  enterprise  depends 
upon  continual  turnover.  Interruption  in  turnover  is  imme- 
diately fatal,  as  a  rule.  Inasmuch  as  the  first  effect  of  war 
is  to  threaten  the  turnover  of  capital  in  most  enterprises,  war 
is  regarded  as  a  destructive  visitation.  Some  enterprises  are 
wiped  out,  some  are  crippled  and  some,  it  is  true,  are  strength- 
ened. But  on  the  whole,  war  comes  as  a  disturbing,  if  not 
destructive  element,  dislocating  business  from  its  normal 
channels  of  expression  or  struggle  and  threatening  universal 
bankruptcy  with  few  exceptions.  Certainly,  there  is  a  period 
of  readjustment,  followed  by  excessive  profits  in  many  lines 
but  few  enterprises  are  in  a  position  to  court  the  period  of 
readjustment  involving,  as  it  does,  an  interruption  in  the 
turnover  caused  by  the  loss  of  spheres  of  import  and  export, 
the  increased  cost  of  labor,  the  falling  off  in  demand  for  non- 
essentials, etc. 

Capital  will  go  far  to  create  markets  but  it  will  not  inter- 
rupt its  normal  processes  to  do  so,  because  it  has  to  reckon 
with  the  present.  The  cause  of  the  war  must  be  looked  for 
in  other  directions.  The  War  is  a  war  for  ethnic  preponder- 
ance in  which  economic  factors  are  employed  as  weapons  of 
offense  and  defense  as  they  were  before  the  War.  If  economic 
considerations  were  the  sole  considerations  there  would  be 
no  war  at  all.  It  is  the  aim  of  each  nation  for  ethnic  prepon- 
derance which  complicates  the  economic  problem  and  makes 
it  a  subordinate  consideration,  just  as  the  longing  of  each 
individual  for  individual  preponderance  complicates  the  solu- 


88  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

tion  of  labor  problems.    But  I  will  treat  of  the  "War  more  fully 
in  the  succeeding  chapter. 

The  economic  factors  in  our  daily  life  loom  large  because 
they  are  so  common,  so  tangible  and  so  important,  all  together. 
But  economic  factors  are  not  the  cause  of  human  struggle. 
They  form  a  large  part  of  struggle,  it  is  true,  but  as  the 
consequence  of  the  impulse  to  struggle,  not  as  the  basic  cause 
thereof. 

2.    The  Spirit  of  Acquisition. 

Capital  frequently  makes  complaint  that  its  beneficial 
character  is  overlooked.  Unfortunately,  capital  does  not 
address  itself  to  the  task  of  creating  benefits  but  solely  to 
acquisition.  Under  the  circumstances,  it  is  natural  for  Labor 
to  follow  the  same  line  of  interest  and,  instead  of  seeking  its 
reward  in  the  work  created  by  it  irrespective  of  financial  gain, 
fights  for  the  maximum  return  obtainable.  This  is  quite  in 
accord  with  the  Law  of  Struggle  and  capital  need  not  be 
surprised  thereat,  even  if  it  had  allowed  labor  a  wage  liberal 
instead  of  niggardly. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  idle  for  labor  to  pretend  that 
all  it  desires  is  a  living  wage.  It  demands  the  living  wage 
when  that  is  denied  but  it  does  not  stop  there.  The  fact  is 
that  in  a  world  in  which  achievement  in  struggle  is  measured 
by  the  acquisition  of  property,  few  can  resist  the  longing  to 
acquire.  Acquisition,  in  fact,  has  become  an  incident  and  the 
final  seal  of  success  in  struggle.  It  is  this  that  makes  the 
solution  of  the  economic  question  so  difficult.  We  are  in  con- 
flict with  the  aims  and  ideals  of  human  struggle  which  have 
not  yet  risen  above  the  thirst  for  gain,  which,  in  turn,  is 
augmented  by  the  prestige  of  acquisition  and  the  relative  inse- 
curity of  our  economic  condition— a  consciousness  that  never 
escapes  us. 

The  aims  and  ideals  of  human  struggle  are  not  perma- 
nently committed,  however,  to  the  striving  for  wealth.  The 
world  offers  numerous  instances  of  individuals  and  masses  of 
men  who  have  risen  above  the  exclusive  struggle  for  the 
world's  goods  and  devoted  themselves  to  other  ambitions. 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE         89 

The    possibilities    of   human    struggle    in    this    respect    are 
measureless. 

Witness  this  tremendous  Race-War  which  has  drawn 
millions  of  men  into  the  trenches,  men  who  have  the  full 
realization  that,  although  their  children  may  profit  by  the 
sacrifice,  they  themselves  in  all  likelihood  will  enter  the  way 
of  death.  Could  there  be  any  better  proof  that  the  craving 
for  economic  gain  is  not  the  basis  of  Struggle? 

But  since  the  world  as  a  whole  requires  the  stimulas  of 
tangible  gain  in  order  to  extend  its  efforts  to  struggle  to  the 
utmost,  it  would  be  premature  to  force  it  to  create  or  amass 
without  possessing,  to  struggle  without  the  illusion  of  con- 
crete gain.  All  that  the  State  can  do  at  present  is  to  check 
the  strugglers  for  economic  advantage  from  destroying  each 
other,  by  forcing  standards  of  struggle  upon  them. 

Some  day,  however,  it  may  become  manifest  to  the  world 
that  acquisition  of  economic  values  is  an  illusion  of  Struggle, 
not  a  necessity.  All  the  world's  pictures,  statues,  books, 
houses,  devices,  etc.,  are  little  in  themselves  but  only  as  show- 
ing that  a  degree  of  Struggle  has  been  attained.  What  is  the 
recompense  of  the  boy  who  wins  a  race?  Nothing  but  the 
exultation  of  successful  struggle.  It  is  not  different  with  the 
multi-millionaire  who  gives  up  his  art-treasures  to  the  public 
after  years  of  costly  and  painstaking  selection.  Nor  is  it 
different  with  the  creator  of  any  work.  It  is  not  the  thing 
itself  that  is  of  prime  value  to  the  creator — though  it  may 
have  value — but  as  a  symbol  of  achievement  by  struggle. 
Possession,  then,  and  least  of  all,  physical  possession,  is  not 
a  necessity  of  Struggle,  save  as  a  confirmation  of  achievement 
in  Struggle.  To  strong  characters  this  confirmation  may  come 
by  the  power  of  visualization  only  and  the  extension  of  self- 
hood; to  weaker  natures  it  can  only  be  realized  through  public 
approbation;  and  to  the  weakest,  by  actual  physical  posses- 
sion and  dominion  in  some  form.  It  must  be  confessed,  how- 
ever, that,  at  present,  we  are  all  very  weak  in  this  sense  and 
must  be  constantly  re-assured  by  the  crudest  means  in  order 
to  be  kept  to  our  task. 


90  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

3.    Economics  and  Struggle-Psychology. 

I  have  no  doubt  there  will  be  some  who  will  smile  at 
my  views  of  economic  causes  and  relations.  They  will  ask, 
What  has  Pain  and  Struggle  to  do  with  the  Law  of  Supply 
and  Demand?  And  how  can  you  mix  psychology  with  eco- 
nomics ? 

But  "psychology"  has  everything  to  do  with  economics. 
The  resources  of  the  world  should  be  ample  to  supply  the  bare 
needs  of  mankind.  What  makes  them  insufficient?  Two  fac- 
tors that  are  purely  psychological : 

One:  The  withholding  of  large  resources  from  the  many 
by  the  few,  although  those  resources  are  not  economically  nec- 
essary to  the  few. 

Two :  The  growing  diversity  of  needs  for  each  individual 
although  not  economically  essential,  i.  e.,  not  necessary  to 
sustain  life. 

As  for  the  first  factor,  it  cannot  be  seriously  contended 
that  it  is  economically  essential  for  the  great  capitalists  to 
do  with  nothing  less  than  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  land, 
mines,  securities,  or  property  in  any  of  its  forms.  It  may  be 
helpful  or  even  essential  for  their  commercial  undertakings 
to  possess  this  superfluous  wealth  but  it  cannot  be  said  to  be 
economically  necessary.  Why  then  do  they  hang  on  to  this 
wealth?  The  reason  lies  in  the  psychology  of  struggle. 
According  to  almost  universal  opinion,  which  is  reflected  in 
our  institutions  and  life-habits,  physical  acquisition  is  the 
seal  of  success  in  Struggle;  and  as  far  as  it  goes,  justly  so, 
because,  as  a  general  proposition,  acquisition  only  comes 
with  struggle.  In  the  present  stage  of  our  development,  then, 
great  wealth  is  a  psychological  necessity  only,  if  it  is  neces- 
sary at  all. 

As  for  the  second  factor,  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that 
we  are  all  capitalists  by  nature.  We  all  wish  our  struggle  to 
be  vindicated  by  the  most  tangible  signs  of  fulfillment. 

In  other  words,  our  economic  problem  is  fundamentally 
complicated  by  our  struggle-psychology.  All  our  books  on 
economics  ought  to  be  re-written  with  this  fact  in  mind  and 
our  definitions  re-framed  to  include  those  psychological  fac- 
tors that  loom  large  in  the  determination  of  economic  relations. 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE         91 

For  example,  one  of  the  chief  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the 
solution  of  the  labor  question  is  that  labor  cannot  be  satisfied 
permanently  any  more  than  capital  can  be.  Had  it  been 
possible  to  satisfy  labor,  it  would  never  have  migrated  from 
the  rural  to  the  urban  districts.  Its  demands  have  grown 
with  its  sensitiveness.  It  is  no  longer  a  matter  of  merely 
keeping  body  and  soul  together  even  in  relative  comfort. 
The  capacity  for  suffering  and  for  enjoyment,  both,  has  grown 
and  is  growing  tremendously.  Our  growing  sensitiveness  to 
experiences  has  increased  our  appetites  in  a  great  many  direc- 
tions hitherto  unchartered.  We  are  no  longer  content  to  live 
in  mud-caves.  However  needy  we  may  be,  we  must  have 
curtains  on  our  windows,  some  few  ornaments,  some  few 
pictures,  however  trashy  and  fly-specked,  some  burnished 
spoons — not  of  wood  as  formerly — chairs,  tables,  furniture, 
however  poor,  beds  and  other  accessories  which  would  have 
been  accounted  luxuries  by  our  primitive  forefathers.  About 
five  hundred  years  ago  the  use  of  forks  was  hardly  known. 
Today,  who  will  do  without  them?  We  actually  throw  away 
perfectly  good  clothes  because  they  may  be  worn  or  have 
holes  in  them.  We  will  no  longer  sleep  on  the  floor,  eat  with 
our  hands,  partake  of  unspiced  foods  or  do  without  soap. 

As  for  those  of  us  who  belong  to  the  so-called  middle-class, 
if  we  but  stop  to  think  of  it,  we  adhere  to  most  amazing 
standards  of  discomfort  in  our  daily  life  which  we  regard  as 
necessary  to  our  comfort.  These  standards  are  created  for 
us  by  those  or  for  those  who  are  accounted  strong,  i.  e., 
wealthy  or  successful  in  the  most  prevalent  form  of  struggle. 
Every  young  couple,  for  example,  on  entering  upon  the  marital 
state,  feel  compelled  to  acquire  the  modicum  of  silver  or 
cut-glass  ware,  as  the  case  may  be,  whether  they  can  afford 
it  or  not.  Why?  Why  will  they  so  much  prefer  a  more 
expensive  seat  in  the  theatre  even  though  just  as  good  a 
view  is  obtainable  for  less  money  in  another  row?  Why  will 
women  rush  precipitately  for  straw  hats  before  the  winter 
is  done  and  sweat  in  winter  millinery  when  the  summer  is 
still  with  us?  Why  are  the  poor  in  such  a  stew  to  keep  pace 
with  the  fashions?  What  is  the  role  of  fashion  in  the  world 
of  struggle?  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  primping  and 
embellishment  where  all  is  effort  and  strife  ? 


92  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

The  fashions  are  simply  the  grand  manners  of  the  strong. 
All  wish  to  be  considered  strong  and  take  pains  to  seem 
strong.  To  this  end,  every  available  means  will  be  employed. 
All  primping  and  embellishment  therefore  is  for  prestige  in 
aid  of  struggle.  This  principle  is  felt,  if  not  understood,  by 
the  poorest  shop-girl,  the  leader  of  society,  the  soldier  in  the 
army,  and  Caesar  on  his  throne  of  porphyry. 

Generally  speaking,  what  is  fashionable  may  also  be  ex- 
pected to  be  aesthetically  pleasing.  But  this  is  not  all-import- 
ant nor  essential.  The  strong  will  frequently  adopt  extremes  in 
order  to  shake  off  the  weaker  imitating  brethren  who  will  be 
sure  to  appear  at  a  disadvantage  in  them.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  ugliness  of  the  fashion  will  not  be  a  deterrent  to  the  poor 
because  its  aesthetic  merit  is  not  relevant  to  the  underlying 
object,  which  is  prestige.  This  accounts  for  the  frequent  visi- 
tations and  disappearances  of  expensive  fads  of  all  kinds. 

In  this  connection,  I  am  reminded  of  a  story  I  was  told 
about  ostrich  feathers.  Prior  to  the  War,  it  seems,  ostrich 
feathers  were  very  much  in  fashion,  worn  by  the  rich  and 
coveted  by  the  poor.  They  were  quite  expensive.  The  War, 
however,  with  its  necessary  economies  and  limitation  of  for- 
eign markets,  made  it  impossible  for  the  African  ostrich 
farmers  to  export  the  feathers  either  to  Great  Britain,  her 
allies,  or,  of  course,  the  Central  Powers.  The  ostrich  farmers, 
therefore,  sent  all  their  feathers  to  America  and,  in  order 
to  force  their  sale,  lowered  the  price  materially  so  that  it 
came  within  reach  of  the  poor.  The  poor  bought  with  avidity 
for  a  while,  but  the  rich  ceased  wearing  ostrich  feathers 
because  the  article  had  become  "cheapened."  Then,  strange 
to  say,  when  the  poor  found  that  ostrich  feathers  were  easily 
obtainable  and  the  rich  had  ceased  to  wear  them,  the  demand 
stopped  altogether.  Today,  neither  rich  nor  poor  wear  or 
covet  ostrich  feathers. 

4.    The  Right  to  Property. 

Property  is  acquired  by  struggle  according  to  the  recog- 
nized or  prevailing  standard  of  struggle  at  the  time  of  its 
acquisition. 

If  title  to  propert}'-  so  acquired  was  good  at  the  time  of 
acquisition,  it  is  good  for  all  time. 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE         93 

Although  the  original  title  to  property  cannot  be 
impeached  if  acquired  according  to  the  common  standard  of 
struggle,  it  is  amenable  to  the  rules,  penalties  and  exactions 
of  standards  of  struggle  subsequently  evolved  and  commonly 
recognized- 

Thus,  although  the  original  possession  was  not  wrongful 
at  the  time,  its  continued  ownership  and  administration  can 
be  naturally  affected  by  the  resultant  inroads  of  changed 
standards  of  struggle  in  the  economic  field  or  even  by  the 
edict  of  the  state,  if  it  be  in  accordance  with  the  common 
standard  of  struggle. 

But  the  chief  thing  to  remember  is  that  no  matter  what 
disposition  future  standards  of  struggle  may  make  of  prop- 
erty, it  cannot  impeach  the  original  title  as  wrongful  unless 
the  property  was  not  acquired  according  to  an  accepted  stand- 
ard of  struggle.  It  follows  also  that  we  need  not  march  with 
those  that  claim  that  property  is  theft  in  order  to  believe  that 
property-rights  are  subject  to  modification  by  new  standards 
of  struggle. 

5.  Capital. 

None  of  the  definitions  of  this  term  indicates  that  capital 
pre-supposes  a  psychologic  as  well  as  a  strictly  economic 
value.    How  then  can  our  conclusions  prove  correct? 

Capital  does  not  consist  simply  of  subsistence,  tools  and 
material  nor  of  labor  only  nor  of  all  these  things  together. 
All  these  things  become  capital  only  when  someone  assumes 
the  risk  of  employing  these  values  under  conditions  of  eco- 
nomic instability  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  more  value. 

From  the  standpoint  of  Struggle  then — and  this  is  the 
correct  standpoint — value  becomes  invested  with  the  charac- 
ter of  capital  only  as  an  incident  of  courage  or  the  willingness 
to  take  risks.  In  short,  capital  is  value  employed  at  risk  in 
order  to  derive  more  value. 

6.  Labor. 

Labor — I  mean,  of  course,  wage-labor — is  that  part  of 
value  that  is  represented  by  human  energy  applied  without 
economic  risk.    It  is  not  capital  save  to  him  who  assumes  the 


94  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

market  risk  in  its  employment.  As  soon  as  the  laborer  puts 
his  services  at  risk  instead  of  at  a  fixed  wage,  he  becomes  a 
capitalist.  Indeed,  many  a  laborer  becomes  a  capitalist  in 
just  this  way — by  abandoning  the  security  of  a  certain  income 
through  the  medium  of  the  wage  to  join  an  enterprise  in 
which  there  is  the  element  of  economic  risk  and  in  which  he 
invests  his  wage-labor  as  capital. 

7.  Capital  and  Labor. 

As  matters  stand,  then,  capital  assumes  the  economic  risk 
and  therefore  claims  and  derives  its  corresponding  reward 
when  successful.  Of  course,  the  claim  may  be  made  that,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  labor  does  operate  at  economic  risk  because 
there  is  no  stability  in  the  wage-scale.  But  this  risk — if  it  is  a 
risk — is  passive,  not  active  as  in  the  exercise  of  capital,  and 
there  is  a  world  of  difference  between  the  two — in  fact,  it  is 
the  whole  difference  between  risking  and  not  risking. 

Labor  operates  without  risk,  but  also  with  correspond- 
ingly reduced  hope.  It  may  be  said  as  an  axiom  that  labor 
works  without  risk  and  without  hope. 

To  alter  this  state  of  affairs  and  put  labor  and  capital 
upon  a  more  equal  basis,  either  labor  must  agree  to  operate  at 
economic  risk  or  the  element  of  risk  must  be  eliminated  from 
the  operations  of  capital.  But  we  will  go  more  fully  into  this 
later. 

8.  Wealth. 

AVealth  is  that  part  of  economic  value  held  free  from 
risk.  Under  this  head,  then,  belong  all  forms  of  property  not 
placed  in  economic  risk  such  as  articles  of  wear  used  for  wear 
and  for  nothing  else;  money  that  is  hoarded  instead  of  being 
loaned,  invested  or  banked  at  interest,  and  all  forms  of  pri- 
vate and  public  utility  or  economic  value  that  is  held  for 
direct  private  or  public  consumption  or  enjoyment. 

9.  Struggle  as  Labor. 

In  order  to  gain  some  idea  of  the  complexities  of  the 
labor-problem  it  would  be  well  to  consider  the  subject  under 
the  following: 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE         95 

a.  Labor  Seeking  Employment. 

b.  Labor  Seeking  Living  Wages. 

c.  Labor  Seeking  More  Than  Living  Wages. 

d.  Labor  Seeking  Better  Working  Conditions. 

e.  Labor  as  Struggle. 

In  considering  the  subject  under  the  foregoing  sub- 
divisions, I  wish  chiefly  to  present  the  problem  from  the  point 
of  view  of  Struggle.  It  will  be  useful  to  do  this  even  if  for 
no  other  purpose  than  to  help  clarify  the  consideration  of  this 
great  question  and  remove  it  from  the  morass  of  extreme 
partisanship  and  prejudgment  which  prevent  the  recognition 
of  the  rights  of  labor  and  the  limits  of  its  just  demands  upon 
the  world. 

a.    Labor  Seeking  Employment. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  tho  the  actual  number  of  the 
unemployed  in  different  countries  at  different  times  may  be 
large,  their  relative  number  is  small  unless  we  include  in  the 
same  category  those  who,  tho  employed,  earn  less  than  living 
wages.  Their  actual  number,  however,  is  large  enough — all 
too  large. 

Unemployment  is  not  only  evil  in  itself  but  it  is  a  plague- 
spot  on  the  body  of  labor  itself  because  it  threatens  to  reduce 
the  wage-scale  to  lower  and  lower  proportions.  Indeed,  it 
represents  an  apparent  glut  of  the  labor  market  with  the 
attendant  ills  that  go  with  the  glut  of  any  commodity.  But 
whereas  ordinary  commodities  cheapened  by  glut  may  be 
discarded  to  a  certain  extent.  Labor  cannot,  that  is  to  say, 
must  not  be  cheapened  below  the  living  wage  nor  be  discarded 
at  any  time  because  we  are  dealing  here  with  human  beings 
to  whose  welfare  we  have  become  sensitive. 

Upon  the  face  of  it,  there  ought  to  be  no  excuse  for  unem- 
ployment as  a  chronic  condition.  The  existence  of  human 
beings  in  whatever  numbers  should  result  in  keeping  the 
human  family  occupied  in  providing  for  itself.  The  more 
there  are  the  more  there  is  to  do.  There  is  no  fundamental 
reason  why  this  equation  should  be  disturbed.  Labor  has, 
therefore,  the  right  to  look  for  such  a  rectification  of  indus- 
trial values  as  will  provide  all  with  the  opportunity  to  labor. 


96  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

The  argument  has  been  put  forward,  however,  that  the 
claim  of  Labor  in  this  particular  has  no  logical  premise 
because  the  basis  of  life  is  the  struggle  of  the  fittest  to  survive. 
This,  as  I  have  already  intimated,  is  utterly  wrong  and  untrue. 
Struggle  is  not  necessarily  competitive.  Struggle  has  no  other 
object  save  to  struggle — to  struggle  from  Pain.  In  the  long 
course  of  human  development,  the  existence  of  other  human 
beings  and  other  interests  may  have  been  offensive  to  us, 
our  incapacity  in  primitive  times  may  have  led  us  to  snatch 
from  others  what  we  have  since  learned  to  create  for  our- 
selves or  in  common  with  others,  and  we  struggled  according 
to  the  pain  that  was  in  us — according  to  our  ''light,"  as  it  is 
said.  But  there  is  no  basic  necessity  to  struggle  at  the 
expense  of  someone  else.  On  the  contrary,  as  struggle 
increases,  it  widens  in  scope  and  more  and  more  interests  are 
embraced  under  its  wing.  Thus,  the  greater  the  struggler, 
the  larger  are  his  responsibilities;  the  smaller  the  struggler, 
the  narrower  his  interests  and  responsibilities. 

It  is  true  that  the  world  was  not  born  with  a  living  wage 
and  the  ability  to  find  compensative  employment  for  all.  But 
the  world  originated  with  a  lower  intelligence  and  with  a 
lower  standard  of  struggle,  and,  if  we  are  not  to  revert  to 
lower  standards  of  struggle  again,  employment  and  the  liv- 
ing wage  are  indispensable. 

Although  the  proportion  of  unemployed  is  relatively 
small,  it  is,  nevertheless,  a  tragic  incident  in  the  struggle  of 
Labor  where  it  does  occur.  LTnemployment  reveals  nakedly 
the  fact  that  our  life  is  conditioned  by  struggle — whether  fail- 
ure to  find  employment  is  due  to  individual  or  collective  inca- 
pacity. In  cases  of  individual  incapacity  to  find  employment 
— as  occurs  in  cities — there  is  generally  the  element  of  unwill- 
ingness to  accept  employment  that  is  uncongenial,  unfamiliar 
or  not  suflficiently  remunerative.  Indeed,  these  are  the  main 
factors  that  account  for  the  movement  of  rural  populations 
towards  cities.  In  short,  an  analysis  of  individual  instances 
of  incapacity  to  find  employment  will  show  that  the  cause  is 
psychological  rather  than  economic  in  the  narrower  sense  of 
the  word.  (I  do  not  wish  to  imply,  however,  that  this  inca- 
pacity is  not  tragic  because  it  is  psychological  in  its  nature. 
Our  psychological  experiences  have  the  power  to  strengthen 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE         97 

or  to  kill  us.  But  we  ought  to  call  things  by  their  right  names 
if  we  are  to  think  intelligently  of  the  real  factors  that  make 
conditions  for  us.) 

But,  as  a  general  proposition,  there  is  employment  for  all, 
simply  because  we  are  forced  to  provide  for  each  other  in  the 
natural  course  of  things.  The  increase  of  population  does  not 
affect  the  mutuality  of  this  principle. 

During  times  of  economic  crisis  (which  is  a  period  of 
general  timidity  due  to  the  demonstration  of  general  inca- 
pacity in  supplying  the  actual  as  distinguished  from  the  com- 
mercial demand  for  commodities)  inability  to  find  employ- 
ment becomes  more  general  and  more  acute. 

The  only  relief  for  unemployment  resulting  from  such 
causes,  it  would  seem,  is  in  the  standardization  of  production 
to  accord  with  actual,  as  distinguished  from  stimulated,  needs 
created  by  over-trading.  At  present,  some  have  no  employ- 
ment at  all,  others  are  compelled  to  work  too  many  hours  per 
day.  The  problem  is  to  fix  upon  such  a  ratio  between  the 
cost  of  labor,  the  hours  of  labor  and  the  essential  needs  of 
the  world  as  will  provide  all  with  employment.  The  Eight- 
Hour  Law  seems  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  but  we  do. not 
know.  Perhaps  there  should  be  a  Six-Hour  Law,  or  a  Nine- 
Hour  Law. 

To  be  sure,  there  are  those  who  believe  that  we  are  really 
suffering  from  over-population — that,  due  to  the  exhaustion 
of  the  resources  of  nature,  the  returns  of  labor  are  ever  dimin- 
ishing. Certainly,  no  economic  system  can  avail  us  if  the 
increases  of  population  are  such  as  to  outrun  our  capacity  to 
provide  for  it.  If  the  world  is  actually  insolvent  and,  on  this 
account,  starving,  equality  in  distribution  will  not  save  it. 
On  the  contrary,  in  such  a  case,  there  is  greater  hope  in 
inequality. 

But  the  fact  is,  we  do  not  know.  Consequently,  we  neither 
concentrate  upon  the  production  of  deficiencies  nor  place  a 
check  upon  the  growth  of  population.  One  of  the  reasons  why 
we  do  not  know  our  deficiency  nor  concentrate  upon  the  prob- 
lem of  supplying  it,  is  because  the  variable  demands  of  trade 
are  given  precedence  over  every  other  consideration.  Also, 
we  are  loath  to  believe  that  we  are  suffering  from  over-popula- 
tion, because  experience  has  shown  that  our  capacity  to  strug- 


98  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

gle  in  the  economic  field,  as  in  every  other  field,  has  increased 
enormously  beyond  the  limits  of  what  was  once  thought  pos- 
sible and,  despite  our  past  and  present  limitations,  the  poten- 
tialities of  human  struggle,  human  resourcefulness  and 
productivity,  are  endless.  True  as  this  may  be  in  the  abstract, 
if  we  choose  to  work,  not  with  an  abstraction,  but  with  actu- 
ality, it  behooves  us  to  take  steps  toward  the  standardization 
of  production  and  distribution. 

If  we  cannot  or  will  not  effect  such  provision  as  will 
provide  labor  with  employment,  the  standard  of  struggle  is 
bound  to  be  violated  if  not  lowered.  The  unemployed  must 
resort  to  riot  or  mass-violence,  individual  crime,  or  still  the 
pain  of  unachievement  with  drink,  drugs  and  the  like  which 
undermine  permanently  the  capacity  to  struggle.  The  taint 
spreads  in  all  directions. 

b.    Labor  Seeking  Living  Wages. 

All  the  world  sympathizes  with  labor  in  its  demand  for 
a  living  wage.  It  is  recognized  that  means  to  sustain  life 
should  not  be  denied  anyone.  The  struggle  to  sustain  life  is 
the  most  pitiful  and  the  most  inglorious  known  because  it  is 
struggle  at  its  lowest  ebb  or  struggle  for  the  existence  of 
struggle. 

Now,  however  much  we  may  believe  in  struggle  as  a  uni- 
versal principle,  we  have  gone  beyond  the  stage  when  it  could 
be  invoked  as  a  formula  of  oppression  or  of  indifference. 
The  world  is  too  sensitive  today  to  allow  labor  to  remain 
forever  on  the  rack,  if  it  can  be  prevented.  But  how  can 
capital  come  to  the  relief  when  it  is  itself  in  jeopardy? 

To  offer  labor  better  than  prevailing  terms  comes  exceed- 
ingly hard  to  capital,  because  capital  is  carried  along  by  the 
momentum  of  quite  another  pursuit  or  struggle — to  increase 
capital  and  minimize  its  risk  by  reducing  operating  costs. 
How  then  can  capital  be  expected  to  suddenly  halt  in  its 
tracks,  turn  around  and  offer  labor  a  seeming  gratuity  in  the 
shape  of  compensation  that  is  not  forced  by  market  condi- 
tions'? Such  an  act  would  run  counter  to  the  whole  thread  of 
commercial  struggle. 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE         99 

It  must  be  remembered,  also,  that  practically  all  enter- 
prises start  with  an  amount  of  capital  that  is  relatively  insuf- 
ficient for  the  object  in  view  and  are  further  intimidated  by 
the  instability  of  market  conditions.  It  is  here  that  the  ele- 
ment of  economic  risk  enters.  The  promoter,  however,  throws 
into  the  scale  all  the  other  helpful  factors  he  can  command — 
his  own  courage,  skill  and  enterprise,  his  borrowing  resources, 
and  the  opportunities  presented  by  the  markets  of  the  world 
both  as  to  material  and  as  to  labor.  Labor  in  such  circum- 
stances cannot  hope  for  a  better  wage  than  is  conducive  to  the 
interest  of  capital  in  its  own  struggles.  It  is  a  condition 
grown  naturally  out  of  the  soil  of  struggle  inherent  in  all 
relations. 

To  be  sure,  there  are  a  relatively  few  instances  in  which 
some  concessions  have  been  made  gratuitously,  but  the 
donors  were  generally  surfeited  with  gain  or  the  fighting  edge 
for  acquisition  had  been  somewhat  dulled  by  age  or,  in  the 
best  instances,  where  the  possibilities  of  struggle  by  means  of 
capital  had  broadened  in  the  minds  of  the  donors  to  include 
more  than  profits;  but  even  the  latter  instance  must  have  been 
preceded  by  a  period  of  single-minded  acquisitiveness. 

Confronted  by  such  a  condition,  it  is  natural  for  Labor 
to  organize  with  a  view  to  enhancing  its  market  value  or  at 
least,  to  prevent  the  price  of  labor  from  falling  below  the 
legitimate  life-cost  which  makes  labor  possible,  and  thus  exact 
a  living  wage  from  capital. 

Labor,  no  less  than  capital,  has  the  right  to  withdraw 
from  the  field  when  market  conditions  render  operations 
unprofitable.  In  doing  this  labor,  like  capital,  is  only  exercis- 
ing its  elementary  right  to  struggle.  But  admitting  the  right 
of  labor  to  force  the  increase  of  wages  in  this  way,  it  has  still 
to  contend  with  the  increases  in  the  costs  of  commodities  which 
labor  cannot  control  and  which  have  the  effect  of  neutralizing 
such  wage  increases  as  labor  is  able  to  wring  from  capital. 

But  this  is  only  another  aspect  of  the  complex  labor  prob- 
lem.   Let  us  now  consider  the  subject  of 

c.    Labor  Seeking  More  Than  Living  Wages. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  labor  is  satisfied  with  a  bare  liv- 
ing wage.    It  organizes  with  a  view  to  forcing  a  higher  and 


100  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

higher  wage  irrespective  of  the  demands  necessitated  by  the 
needs  of  bare  existence.  When  Labor  attains  this  position  in 
the  gamut  of  struggle,  it  should  by  no  means  forfeit  our 
sympathy.  The  sympathy  of  the  world  goes  to  whomever  has 
the  largest  burden  of  struggle  placed  upon  him  and  struggles 
valiantly  under  it;  and  this  will  be  the  measure  of  our  sym- 
pathy for  labor. 

It  may  be  well  to  concede,  however,  that  Labor  will  never 
be  content  any  more  than  the  rest  of  us  will  ever  be  content. 
There  is  no  limit  to  our  desires  nor  to  the  pursuit  of  means  to 
gratify  our  desires.  The  love  of  our  own  kind  and  the  preser- 
vation of  certain  fundamental  standards  of  struggle  essential 
to  the  development  of  the  human  race  entails  a  duty  upon  us 
to  see  that  no  one  is  denied  the  minimum  opportunities  to 
maintain  life  or  struggle.  But  the  fulfillment  of  more  compli- 
cated desires  are  matters  of  individual  acquisition,  not  matters 
of  right.  The  quarrel  of  the  individual  here  is  not  with  any 
economic  ''system"  but  with  life  itself. 

As  soon  as  we  get  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  reasonably 
necessary  wage,  we  are  no  longer  in  the  realm  of  basic  neces- 
sity but  in  the  sphere  of  psychological  necessity.  Psycho- 
logical necessities  are  not  to  be  underestimated  either;  they 
may  be  of  tragic  intensity.  But  here  we  are  face  to  face  with 
the  intangible  conflicts  that  go  on  everywhere  in  the  soul  of 
each  individual  as  a  result  of  the  mysterious  imaginings  to 
which  he  is  bound  to  fall  prey.  At  this  point,  every  individual 
has  his  own  peculiar  battle  and  must  win  whatever  support 
he  can  on  the  merits  of  his  particular  case.  His  fight  is  an 
aggressive  one,  not  a  defensive  one,  and  he  must  take  the 
portion  of  the  straggler. 

Many  a  poor  man  would  be  glad  to  work  with  the  advan- 
tages still  left  to  the  bankrupt.  But  the  bankrupt  is  apt  to 
consider  himself  permanently  ruined  and  thinks  of  suicide. 
Why?  Not  because  the  bankrupt  is  ruined  economically  but 
because  he  is  ruined  psychologically.  It  is  not  the  loss  of 
ducats,  it  is  the  loss  of  self-respect  as  a  straggler  which  proves 
the  heart-blow. 

So,  too,  the  desire  for  things  beyond  the  requirements  of 
fundamental  necessity,  is  one  of  a  vast  number  of  variable 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  101 

psychological  necessities.  It  is  for  the  individual  in  his  func- 
tion as  a  struggler  to  force  society  to  reckon  with  his  desires, 
if  he  can. 

But  tho  the  individual's  just  demands,  as  matters  of 
right,  may  be  limited,  society  itself  cannot  escape  the  obliga- 
tions created  by  its  own  sensitiveness.  Thus,  for  example, 
the  desire  to  sustain  life  is  also  merely  a  psychological  neces- 
sity. But  the  time  has  come  for  society  to  take  cognizance  of 
this  necessity,  if  for  no  other  reason  than  because  it  is  such  an 
important  flowering  or  developing  point  in  struggle  and 
because  it  affects  us  so  vitally  and  so  universally  in  our  char- 
acter as  sensitive  beings;  and  we  need  to  retain  our  sensitive- 
ness if  we  are  to  realize  our  fullest  possibilities  in  struggle. 

So,  too,  when  we  speak  of  living  wages,  we  must  think, 
not  only  of  a  wage  sufficient  to  keep  Labor  in  physical  well- 
being,  but  also,  such  an  arrangement  of  its  economic  position 
as  will  keep  the  way  open  for  further  achievement  or  struggle. 

d.    Labor  Seeking  Better  Working  Conditions. 

The  State  itself  should,  as  it  often  does  not,  provide 
reasonably  sanitary  and  safe  working  conditions  for  all  that 
labor  for  wages. 

One  may  well  ask,  why  this  disproportionate  solicitude 
for  the  physical  welfare  of  the  small  wage-earner?  What  is 
there  about  the  wage-earner  that  makes  his  physical  well- 
being  a  matter  of  greater  concern  to  the  state  than  the  priva- 
tions of  the  poor  student,  the  struggling  artist,  scientist,  shop- 
keeper and  professional  man?  Why  do  we  allow  the  organizer 
of  railroad  systems,  the  builders  of  bridges,  the  founders  of 
great  commercial  enterprises,  the  leaders  of  political  move- 
ments fraught  with  universal  benefit,  to  labor  beyond  their 
capacities  until  they  pass  the  breaking  point?  Is  the  State 
for  the  petty  struggler  and  not  for  the  great — for  the  weak, 
but  not  for  the  strong  ? 

The  State  is  for  the  weak  as  well  as  for  the  strong;  for 
the  weak  by  seeing  to  it  that  the  struggle  does  not  destroy 
them;  for  the  strong,  by  leaving  the  way  open  to  them  to 
carry  a  burden  of  struggle  worthy  of  their  strength. 


102  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

e.    Labor  As  Struggle. 

But,  it  may  be  argued,  in  a  world  of  struggle,  why  should 
labor  be  at  such  pains  to  insure  its  comforts  when  there  are 
such  innumerable  examples  of  voluntary  privation  and  sacri- 
fice on  the  part  of  unorganized  workers  in  all  forms  of  activity? 
Is  it  not  a  degradation  of  the  noble  form  of  struggle  that  goes 
under  the  name  of  Work? 

Here  we  touch  upon  the  most  crucial  aspect  of  the  whole 
labor  problem  and  the  one  which  has  received  the  least  atten- 
tion— the  yearning  of  every  worker  to  engage  in  that  form 
of  labor  that  shall  be  expressive  of  himself,  that  shall  contain 
the  possibility  of  struggle  from  pain.  Given  a  task  in  which 
they  are  ''interested,"  men  will  not  hesitate  to  undergo  all 
the  hardship,  all  the  privation  that  goes  with  it.  That  is  why 
one  man  will  pore  over  his  work  long  after  the  day  is  done, 
or  will  endure  the  hazards  and  hardships  of  the  equator  or 
the  arctic  regions,  while  another  will  be  unable  to  keep  his 
eyes  from  the  factory  clock.  Why,  indeed,  should  one  man 
grimace  at  the  prospect  of  spending  an  extra  hour  in  a  factory 
and  another  stand  knee-deep  in  the  water  of  a  war-trench  and 
not  think  himself  ill-used  to  face  an  enemy  all  day? 

The  truth  is  that  the  economic  factor  has  been  overrated 
in  relation  to  Labor  as  in  other  relations.  It  is  true  that  prac- 
tically all  strikes  are  ostensibly  for  higher  wages  or  better 
working  conditions  or  both.  But  if  wages  were  too  low  and 
conditions  of  labor  too  onerous,  why  did  the  employes  engage 
to  work  in  the  first  place?  The  answer  is  that  they  engaged 
in  the  work  in  response  to  their  will  to  struggle  as  it  then 
existed.  The  work  answered  to  their  will  to  struggle  for  a 
time  only.  But  it  contained  no  possibilities  of  struggle  in 
an  ascending  degree.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  devoid  both 
of  possibility  and  interest.  Struggle  could  only  be  satisfied 
outside  of  it,  not  in  it.  To  one  engaged  in  the  deadly  monotony 
of  labor  without  interest,  activity  without  the  exultation  of 
struggle,  the  strike  itself  is  a  relief,  even  without  a  victory. 
The  strike  represents  the  interest  which  the  work  fails  to 
offer. 

The  wage  is  not  everything.  The  Belgian  Laborers,  im- 
pressed by  the  Germans,  were  promised  good  wages.    Did  this 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  103 

fill  the  bill?  They  called  it  enslavement.  So,  too,  those  that 
work  without  labor-interest  have  to  contend  for  emancipation. 
Here  is  where  the  real  tragedy  of  Labor  lies  hidden.  Not 
the  insufficiency  of  the  wage,  not  long  hours,  not  unsanitary 
or  perilous  conditions — for  men  have  borne  all  these  gladly — 
but  the  complete  divorce  of  sympathy  for  the  work  in  hand. 
Instead  of  arousing  interest  in  the  work,  employers  have  onh' 
succeeded  in  accentuating  interest  in  the  wage.  Naturally, 
then,  the  centre  of  struggle  focused  around  the  wage.  The 
work  once  mastered  by  ' '  the  hand, ' '  ceases  to  offer  any  possi- 
bilities of  struggle.  But  the  wage-question  invites  to  struggle 
because  it  calls  for  all  the  inventive  power,  resourcefulness 
and  self-expression  of  the  worker.  It  is  the  one  struggle  in 
connection  with  his  work  in  which  he  is  a  real  factor  instead 
of  a  pawn. 

Doubtless,  men  will  not  long  remain  passive  under  a  wage 
that  is  both  insufficient  and  is  capable  of  being  increased. 
They  will  make  many  endeavors  to  force  the  increase.  Many 
will  even  turn  from  their  chosen  vocations  and  engage  in 
more  lucrative  occupations.  All  this,  however,  does  not  prove 
that  the  wage-interest  is  necessarily  the  fo'remost  one.  It 
may  easily  become  foremost  under  certain  conditions,  just  as 
breathing  became  the  premier  essential  to  the  British  pris- 
oners penned  in  the  Black  Hole  of  Calcutta. 

At  the  present  time,  the  wage-interest  is  the  only  one  for 
labor  because  the  individuality  of  the  laborer  in  modern  indus- 
try is  completely  lost.  He  is  not  an  artist  nor  a  scientist.  He 
is  an  anonymous  worker.  Sacrifices  would  be  meaningless. 
I,  for  example,  can  at  least  put  my  name  to  this  book  so  that 
all  men  can  see  how,  where  and  when  I  struggled,  and  my 
achievement  will  not  be  a  stone  thrown  in  the  dark.  So,  too, 
the  soldier,  however  unnoticed,  feels  that  the  spectacular  and 
heroic  nature  of  his  struggle,  makes  him  the  cynosure  of  all 
eyes.  But  the  struggle  of  our  laborer,  as  matters  are  consti- 
tuted, if  not  represented  in  the  wage  is  not  represented  at  all. 

Thus,  what  is  realh^  chronic  in  the  labor  situation  is  that 
labor  has  been  robbed  of  its  struggle-motive.  Labor  has  no 
portion  of  achievement  in  the  work  that  labor  does.  There- 
fore, unless  labor  succeeds  in  wringing  satisfaction  out  of  its 
wage,  it  is  virtually  in  a  state  of  slavery.    If  neither  the  wage 


104  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

nor  the  work  itself  answers  the  demands  of  pain-and-struggle, 
it  is  natural  for  labor  to  lay  great  emphasis  upon  the  condi- 
tions of  labor,  the  length  of  hours,  etc. 

What  is  the  lesson  to  be  drawn  from  this?  To  me  the 
conclusion  seems  inevitable  that  labor,  too,  must  be  supplied 
with  the  perspective  and  zest  for  achievement  enjoyed  by  the 
entrepeneur  and  capitalist,  for  these  are  the  things  that  make 
for  struggle. 

How  can  this  be  done?  I  should  say,  by  providing  labor, 
in  addition  to  its  necessary  wage,  with  a  share  in  profits,  i.  e., 
permitting  it  to  realize  the  effectiveness  of  its  struggle. 

10.    Why  Values  Must  Be  Standardized. 

When  all  is  said  as  to  what  can  be  done  to  compose  the 
differences  between  labor  and  capital,  i.  e.,  to  maintain  the 
equilibrium  of  their  struggle  so  that  neither  may  be  crushed 
by  the  other,  something  remains  yet  to  be  said.  It  is  easy 
enough  to  talk  about  allowing  labor  to  share  in  profits,  but 
what  establishments  are  in  a  position  to  do  this  as  things  are 
constituted?  As  already  explained,  most  enterprises  begin 
with  a  capital  that  is  insufficient  for  the  ends  in  view  and, 
even  when  this  insufficiency  is  subsequently  supplied,  the 
momentum  of  struggle — for  even  capitalists  are  subject  to  the 
law  of  struggle — carries  them  beyond  their  original  objectives, 
so  that  a  certain  disparity  always  exists  between  the  end  and 
the  means  to  attain  the  end.  This  is  another  way  of  saying 
that  capital  is  always  conscious  of  being  at  risk.  This  con- 
sciousness of  danger  permeates  every  branch  of  trade  and 
industry  and  all  actions  are  weighed  down  by  the  dread,  even 
where  such  dread  seems  to  be  unjustified.  Labor  alone 
assumes  no  economic  risk.  It  neither  assumes  risk  nor 
attempts  to  mitigate  the  risk  of  capital.  Why  then  should 
capital  make  sacrifices  for  labor?  But,  as  we  have  seen, 
although  labor  assumes  no  risk,  the  fact  does  not  save  it  from 
loss  due  to  the  risks  assumed  by  capital. 

The  basic  reason  for  the  insecurity  of  capital  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  commodities  have  no  standard  value.  Cheaper 
labor  markets,  cheaper  methods  of  production,  over-produc- 
ti'vri,   subsidized  production  in  other  countries,   changes   in 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  105 

transits,  changes  in  tariffs  and  the  creation  of  new  centres  of 
production,  invention  and  competition  in  all  its  forms,  operate 
to  upset  the  schedule  of  values.  These  unexpected  changes  in 
productivity  in  different  parts  of  the  world  keep  our  markets 
in  a  state  of  uncertainty  and  turmoil;  so  many  alien  factors 
enter  into  the  problem  of  the  world 's  demand  and  supply  that 
capital  is  reduced  to  the  position  of  the  gambler.  The  psy- 
chology of  the  gambler  thus  enters  perforce  into  the  opera- 
tions of  capital;  every  operation  must  bring  its  maximum  of 
return  for  there  is  no  certainty  in  tomorrow.  According  to 
every  rule  of  natural  justice,  labor  is  not  entitled  to  share  in 
the  profits  accruing  from  the  risks  of  capital  because  in  all  the 
operations  of  capital  labor  does  not  participate  as  partner 
but  as  creditor. 

It  is  the  insecurity  of  capital,  then,  with  which  we  have  to 
grapple  and  which  is  the  chief  stumbling  block  in  the  way  of 
its  regulation  by  any  doctrinaire  method.  Because  of  this 
insecurity  of  capital — a  quite  justifiable  insecurity  under  the 
conditions — practically  every  industrial  and  commercial  enter- 
prise is  normally  in  a  state  of  panic.  The  larger  institutions 
have  a  knack  of  disguising  their  panic  more  effectively,  per- 
haps, but  this  is  about  the  only  difference.  How  can  capital 
be  cajoled  or  legislated  into  a  profit-sharing  equinimity  with 
labor  when  we  all  realize  that  the  economic  affairs  of  the 
world  are  in  a  state  of  catch-as-catch-can  and  that  capital,  for 
all  its  bloated  appearance,  has  no  assurance  of  continuity? 

Thus  all  plans  for  economic  conformity  that  are  not 
grounded  upon  the  standardization  of  values  are  bound  to  fail. 

11.   How  Values  Can  Be  Standardized. 

We  have  seen,  then,  that  however  sensitive  we  may  be  to 
the  upward  struggle  of  labor,  we  cannot  go  with  those  who 
claim  that  property  is  theft  or  that  labor  is  being  robbed  or 
that  labor  is  entitled  to  equality  of  income  as  a  principle  of 
justice. 

But  labor  can  so  alter  the  conditions  of  struggle  as  to  earn 
the  right  and  create  the  means  to  share  in  profits  over  and 
above  market  wages  even  though  labor  is  not  now  in  a  position 
to  assume  part  of  the  risks  of  capital. 


106  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

We  have  seen  that  capital's  claim  to  all  the  profits  springs 
from  the  fact  that  capital  assumes  the  risk  incident  to  its 
employment;  that  the  laborer  who  is  willing  to  place  his 
wages  in  risk  as  capital,  can  enter  the  capitalist  class  and 
habitually  does  so  enter  it;  and  that  the  conditions  of  risk 
assumed  by  capital  are  created  by  the  uncertainty  of  values 
which  in  turn  are  caused  by  the  lack  of  standardization  in 
production  and  distribution.  This  lack  creates  conditions  of 
real  risk  and  the  reward  which  capital  derives  as  the  fruit  of 
its  enterprise  and  daring  is  justified  by  the  fundamental  law 
of  struggle  to  which  we  all  subscribe  whether  we  are  aware 
of  it  or  no.  It  is  on  this  account  that  capital  is  so  firmly 
intrenched  in  its  right  of  possession  and  it  will  so  remain.  It 
is  on  this  account  also  that  capital  is  not  and  need  not  be 
ashamed,  despite  the  fulminations  of  its  traducers,  as  long  as 
its  struggle  is  in  accordance  with  the  standard  of  struggle. 

Now  let  us  concede  that  as  matters  are  now  constituted, 
labor  as  a  mass  has  not  the  capacity  to  share  economic  risks 
with  capital  in  order  to  win  the  right  to  share  in  profits.  It 
cannot,  therefore,  attain  its  desires  from  this  angle.  But  by 
virtue  of  its  position  in  the  electorate  of  the  country,  labor  has 
the  power  to  eliminate  economic  risk  from  the  operations  of 
capital,  create  standardization  of  values  and  by  this  funda- 
mental concession,  win  the  right  to  share  in  profits,  simply 
paying  capital  for  the  use  of  capital  and  not  for  risks  since 
there  would  be  no  risks. 

How  can  labor  do  this  ? 

By  introducing  a  system  of  legally-recognized,  price  fixed, 
profit-sharing  monopolies  in  all  fields  of  production  and  dis- 
tribution. 

The  era  of  monopolies  is  not  merely  an  artificial  patch- 
work of  doctrinaire  ideas.  It  is  something  that  is  now  being 
evolved  and  will  gradually  grow  into  being,  except  that  we 
have  the  power  to  facilitate  its  arrival  by  intelligent  adapta- 
tion to  our  needs,  if  we  will. 

But  in  order  to  see  all  the  implications  of  the  monopolistic 
idea,  let  us  imagine  that  we  can  decree  the  era  of  monopolies 
into  being. 

Let  us  imagine  that  the  Government  (X)  proceeds  to 
consolidate  all  the  small  and  large  enterprises  in  every  indus- 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  107 

try,  thus  creating  monopolies  in  every  line  of  endeavor  and 
legalizing  these  monopolies  in  such  fashion  that  competition 
with  those  monopolies  becomes  not  only  difficult  but  impos- 
sible because  unlawful. 

Let  us  imagine  further  that  in  order  to  make  these  monop- 
olies absolute,  X  enters  into  trade  agreements  with  other 
countries  or,  failing  this,  establishes  tariffs  to  protect  these 
monopolies  from  foreign  competition. 

Let  us  stretch  our  imagination  a  little  bit  further  and 
imagine  that  all  these  monopolies  are  profit-sharing  as  between 
employers  and  employees — say,  for  example,  that  fifty  per 
cent,  of  the  net  profits  is  to  go  to  employes  beside  market 
wages  and  exclusive  of  industrial  insurance,  etc.,  and  the 
balance  to  the  owners  or  investors. 

Let  us  imagine  further  that  X  not  only  decrees  prices  and 
profit-sharing,  but  also  sets  a  limit  upon  the  salaries  of  the 
owners  which  must  be  decided  by  law  according  to  some  fixed 
schedule ;  as,  for  example,  a  salary  measured  by  the  degree  of 
responsibility  assumed  and  ability  required  for  the  position 
of  executive,  the  replaceable  cost  as  employe  in  the  same  or 
a  similar  enterprise,  apart  from  the  owner's  share  in  the 
profits  accruing  from  his  investment. 

Now  let  us  see  what  must  be  the  result  of  these  measures. 

In  the  first  place,  the  creation  of  monopolies  in  all  lines 
will  automatically  stop  all  gambling  and  speculation  in  com- 
modities. 

As  X  will  limit  the  rate  of  profit  which  can  be  charged 
against  any  commodity,  prices  must  go  down  accordingly  to 
within  the  limits  set. 

In  order  to  obtain  the  maximum  profits  obtainable  within , 
the  limits  set  by  the  Government,  each  monopoly  will  endeavor 
to  produce  a  quantity  equal  to  the  demand. 

As  distribution  would  be  in  the  hands  of  monopolies,  there 
would  be  no  object  in  manufacturing  or  producing  more  than 
sufficient  of  any  product  nor  would  there  be  any  object  in 
scrambling  to  be  the  first  to  glut  the  market. 

In  order  to  increase  profits,  only  one  method  could  avail 
and  that  by  cheapening  the  cost  of  production. 

Inasmuch  as  labor  would  be  entitled  to  its  minimum  mar- 
ket wage  besides  its  share  in  profits,  there  could  be  but  one 


108  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

method   of   cheapening  production,   and  that   by   improved 
methods. 

Cheaper  production  through  improved  methods  would  be 
of  benefit  to  everybody,  including  the  creators  of  it. 

Inasmuch  as  all  monopolies  would  receive  state-recogni- 
tion and  be  legalized,  capital  would  be  secure. 

Security  of  capital  would  result  in  the  maximum  of  indus- 
trial and  agricultural  activity  and  provide  employment  for  all. 

Values  would  be  standardized  and  panics  eliminated. 

Labor  would  have  no  cause  to  strike  on  account  of  insuf- 
ficient wages  inasmuch  as  it  would  receive  in  profits  all  that 
it  could  not  obtain  as  wages. 

Capital  would  not  be  in  a  position  to  grudge  profits  to 
labor,  inasmuch  as  the  State — of  which  labor  is  a  part — would 
accord  capital  the  security  as  well  as  the  certainty  of  profit 
that  goes  with  monopoly;  and  as  capital  would  be  taking  no 
greater  risk  than  labor,  labor  would  be  entitled  to  an  equal 
partnership. 

Labor  could  have  no  cause  to  oppose  monopoly  on  such 
terms  inasmuch  as  it  would  itself  be  part  of  it  and  profit  by  it. 

The  consumer  would  be  protected  inasmuch  as  the  State — 
of  which  he  is  a  part — would  fix  the  rate  of  profit  on  produc- 
tion by  fixing  prices;  and  the  consolidation  of  all  enterprises 
into  homogeneous  monopolies  so  controlled  must  inevitably 
reduce  initial  cost  upon  which  profit  is  figured. 

Capital  would  not  or  should  not  quarrel  with  the  restric- 
tion of  profit; 

Because  the  privilege  of  monopoly  and  the  elimination  of 
trade-competition  would  remove  the  entire  element  of  risk 
in  the  employment  of  capital  and,  as  we  know,  capital  is 
quite  content  to  operate  upon  a  smaller  profit  basis,  where  the 
investment  offers  relative  security; 

Because  the  limitation  of  profits  for  the  benefit  of  the  State 
is  simply  a  more  direct  method  of  taxation  of  income  and 
would  mitigate  the  necessity  for  taxation  by  other  methods; 

Because  the  limitation  of  profits  as  a  national  principle 
would  insure  stability  in  the  cost  of  materials  necessary  to 
every  monopoly — whether  a  distributing  monopoly  or  manu- 
facturing monopoly. 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  109 

Although  all  industry  and  commerce  would  take  the  form 
of  monopolies,  the  individual  would  have  full  liberty  in  the 
matter  electing  his  line  of  activity,  investment  or  both,  subject 
only  to  the  natural  demand  for  his  labor,  capital,  or  both.  It 
must  be  remembered  in  this  connection,  that  the  rule  of 
monopolies  would  create  a  practically  unlimited  demand  for 
labor  and  capital. 

The  rule  of  monopolies  would  not  fasten  an  economic 
caste-system  upon  the  world, 

Because  the  wage-earning  capacity  of  individuals  would 
remain  unequal  and  unrestricted  save  by  the  economic  value 
of  his  services ; 

Because  it  is  as  difficult  to  retain  wealth  as  to  earn  it, 
and  there  would  be  no  check  on  spending  it ; 

Because  every  wage-earner  could  invest  his  surplus  profits 
and  thus  obtain  the  status  of  investor. 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  many  holdings  of 
capital  would  descend  intact  for  some  generations.  But  capital 
would  be  entitled  to  this  benefit,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  so 
much  of  its  earning  power  would  be  employed  for  the  benefit 
of  wage-earners  and  the  state  as  a  whole. 

Capital  at  present  may  object  to  the  inclusion  of  labor 
as  partner.  But  such  an  objection  would  have  to  give  way 
before  the  realities  of  the  situation  which  indicate  that  labor 
has  many  of  the  powers  of  a  partner  even  if  without  the  privi- 
leges of  one. 

Based  upon  the  return  demanded  by  capital  as  sufficient 
compensation  for  safe  investment — which  often  turns  out  not 
so  safe — capital  should  be  well  satisfied  to  divide  profits  with 
labor  where  capital  has  the  assurance  of  a  legally  recognized 
security  conferred  upon  it  by  labor. 

The  individual  capitalist  may  be  averse  to  forming  part 
of  a  monopoly,  and  prefer  to  maintain  a  more  precarious  exist- 
ence if  he  can  preserve  his  independence  and  individuality 
But  the  choice  of  becoming  part  of  a  monopoly  will  not  come 
to  the  small  capitalist  at  the  height  of  his  strength,  but  only 
after  a  long  period  of  industrial  or  commercial  struggle,  at  the 
end  of  which,  consolidation  will  appear  a  refuge  safe  and 
profitable.  In  other  words,  the  era  of  monopolies  will  be 
evolved  as  the  culmination  of  an  inevitable  tendency  against 


110  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

which  it  will  be  demonstrably  useless  as  well  as  unprofitable 
to  struggle.  On  the  contrary,  monopoly  will  become  revealed 
as  introducing  into  the  vortex  of  economic  struggle  the  ele- 
ments of  order,  cohesion,  economy,  vision  and  comprehen- 
siveness by  which  the  whole  world  will  be  the  gainer. 

There  are  those,  to  be  sure,  who  cannot  tolerate  the  idea 
that  the  world  of  the  future  is  to  be  dominated  by  privately- 
owned,  even  though  government-controlled,  monopolies.  To 
such,  equality  of  ownership  or  public  ownership,  is  not  merely 
an  economic  concept;  it  is  a  psychic  obsession.  What  differ- 
ence does  it  make,  after  all,  whether  the  government  owns  or 
controls  a  given  monopoly?  Is  it  more  pleasant  to  contem- 
plate the  unescapable  inequality  of  officialdom,  of  the  manda- 
rin, rather  than  the  inequality  that  exists  elsewhere?  Or  have 
the  economic  fetiches  of  the  day  actually  bludgeoned  us  into 
the  belief  that  there  are  no  distinctions  and  no  inequalities  save 
those  created  by  economic  conditions'?  If  envy  is  to  play  a 
part  in  the  re-organization  of  the  affairs  of  the  world,  no 
economic  system  will  prove  adequate,  because  envy,  as  well  as 
all  other  forms  of  discontent,  lies  much  deeper  than  economics. 
Economic  equality  is  no  more  necessary  nor  possible  than 
physical,  mental,  moral  or  aesthetic  equality  is  necessary  or 
possible. 

Insofar  as  the  inequality  of  income  can  be  taken  advan- 
tage of  by  governments  to-day  for  taxing  purposes,  the 
medium  of  graduated  taxes  would  still  be  available  to  what- 
ever extent  may  be  necessary. 

We  have  still  to  meet  the  objection  of  those  who  make 
claim  that  the  resources  of  the  world  are  being  outstripped 
by  the  unchecked  increases  of  population.  Is  this  correct? 
We  do  not  know.  But  the  standardization  of  production  and 
distribution  would  enable  us  to  take  stock  of  the  world's 
resources  and  teach  us  wherein  we  are  wanting  and  what 
remedies  to  employ  and  where. 

Throughout,  the  Government  would  not  only  protect  labor 
and  capital  in  its  grants  of  monopolies  to  the  exclusion  of 
private  ventures  tending  to  upset  the  standardization  of 
values,  but  also  in  order  to  protect  the  interest  of  the  con- 
sumer against  both  capital  and  labor.  Inasmuch  as  the  per- 
sonnel of  every  monopoly  would  consist  of  consumers  who 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  111 

would  be  protected  as  against  the  incursions  of  other  monopo- 
lies, the  arbitraments  of  the  government  would  be  a  very  wel- 
come factor  in  the  scheme  of  things. 

Now  the  economic  organization  of  one  country  through 
the  medium  of  monopolies  in  all  fields,  including  foreign  buy- 
ing and  selling,  would  result  in  the  creation  of  a  very  high 
state  of  efficiency  difficult  for  other  countries  to  compete  with 
upon  a  profitable  basis — unless  those  other  countries  adopt 
the  same  method  of  specialized  domestic  organization.  This 
would  lay  the  basis  for  international  conformity  in  the  stand- 
ardization of  values  through  world-monopolies  operating 
under  the  aegis  of  the  governments  concerned.  These  world- 
monopolies,  whether  in  the  field  of  agriculture,  industry  or 
distribution,  in  their  own  self-interest  and  under  the  seal  of 
their  governments,  would  apportion  markets,  standardize  pro- 
duction and  values,  eliminate  useless  competition,  and  substi- 
tute for  the  gambling  of  international  commerce  a  modus  of 
exchange  based  upon  actual  requirement  and  economy  in  pro- 
duction and  distribution. 

A  fair  example  of  a  monopoly  dove-tailing  with  the  mo- 
nopolies of  other  countries  is  the  mailing  service.  The  post- 
office,  by  the  way,  is  an  excellent  example  of  the  advantages 
of  monopoly.  To  be  sure,  it  suffers  from  the  defect  of  being 
government-owned  instead  of  being  government-controlled  and 
that  neither  labor  nor  capital  has  any  share  in  it.  But  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  monopoly  gives  it  advantages  which  make  us 
forget  that  it  is  operated  by  a  niggardly  and  tyrannical 
employer  and  that  its  personnel  have  no  interest  in  its  suc- 
cess, that  the  people  at  large  pay  its  deficits  without  knowing 
or  the  means  of  knowing  whether  they  are  paying  much  or 
little  for  the  service. 

As  between  State-owned  and  privately-owned,  govern- 
ment-controlled monopolies,  the  latter  are  by  all  means  to  be 
preferred. 

Because  government-ownership  would  not  be  of  the 
slightest  advantage  to  anyone,  save  that  the  natural  inequali- 
ties inherent  in  man  will  pass  from  unofficial  to  official  life; 

Because  private  ownership  of  monopolies  spells  greater 
individual  responsibility  and  initiative; 


112  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

Because  it  is  mucli  more  expedient  for  the  State  to  con- 
trol what  others  own,  than  to  own,  operate  and  control; 

Because  the  Government  already  has  the  power  to  con- 
trol, while  the  power  to  acquire  on  such  a  scale  as  would  be 
necessary  is  not  in  sight; 

Because  the  Government,  in  its  capacity  of  employer  with 
absolute  ownership  and  control,  must  become  a  tyranny  and, 
as  such,  would  be  in  conflict  with  the  law  and  spirit  of 
struggle ; 

Because  profit-sharing  is  an  integral  aspiration  of  human 
nature  (human  struggle)  which  would  not  be  available  under 
State-ownership,  except,  perhaps,  as  a  mooted  abstraction; 

Because  the  State  can  serve  the  interests  of  the  people  best 
by  specializing  in  its  governmental  functions  only,  of  which  it 
also  would  have  a  monopoly,  subject  to  criticism  and  correc- 
tion, just  as  every  monopoly  would  be  subject  to  public  opinion 
operating  through  the  Government. 

I  shall  probably  have  hurled  at  me  as  an  argument  the 
benefit  of  public  ownership  of  the  railroads  in  this  country, 
because  of  the  sorry  mess  in  which  the  railroads  were  until 
the  government  took  them  over  as  a  war  exigency. 

The  fact  is  we  have  played  the  cat-and-mouse  policy  with 
the  railroads.  At  the  outset,  we  gave  the  railroads  unre- 
stricted liberty  of  action,  virtually  surrendering  all  control, 
and  they  used  their  enormous  privileges  to  the  utmost. 
Thereafter,  to  counteract  the  resultant  abuses,  we  began  to  sap 
their  concessions  by  setting  up  needless  competition.  In  lieu 
of  preventing  the  watering  of  their  stock,  we  began  the  policy 
of  baiting  by  taxation.  We  enacted  an  eight-hour  law  under 
pressure,  knowing  that  this  was  only  an  indirect  method  of 
increasing  wages  and  that  the  increase  would  be  paid  by 
the  people  at  large.  Under  the  exigencies  of  war,  we  seized 
that  control  which  we  never  should  have  relinquished  in  the 
first  place.  Necessity  compelled  us  to  realize  the  advantages 
of  monopoly.  We  thereupon  took  over  all  the  railroads  and 
now  stand  in  danger  of  confounding  the  advantages  of  monop- 
oly with  public  ownership.  The  advantages  of  monopoly 
will  now  be  misunderstood  as  advantages  of  public  ownership. 
Patriotism  and  partisanship  will  prevent  intelligent  criticism 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  113 

and  the  understanding  of  the  shortcomings  and  blunders  of 
public  ownership.  Labor  will  become  addled  as  a  result,  and 
as  strikes  are  incompatible  with  State-ownership,  its  tongue 
will  stick  out  with  its  desires  and  ambitions,  but  that  will  be 
about  all.  After  the  war,  the  Government  will  have  the  choice 
of  two  blunders;  either  to  complete  the  blunder  of  public- 
ownership  and  go  into  the  railroad  business,  or  to  hand  back 
the  railroads  upon  the  old  terms,  break  up  a  natural  monopoly 
and  consign  the  matter  to  the  old  morass  of  railroad  baiting, 
cat-and-mouse  play,  strikes  and  competitive  disorganization. 
There  would  be  still  a  third  choice,  but — f 

The  principle  of  monopoly  cannot  at  once  be  introduced 
in  all  lines  of  activity. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  not  all  of  our  industries  are  in 
shape  to  be  consolidated  into  monopolies.  Nor  is  it  advisable 
to  force  the  process  of  consolidation  because  disorganization 
is  evidence  that  the  industry  in  question  has  not  yet  ''grown 
up."  The  rule  of  monopoly  will  be  inaugurated,  if  not  wil- 
fully opposed,  in  the  natural  processes  of  time,  as  each  indus- 
try matures,  as  the  result  of  fulfillment  in  struggle.  Monopoly 
can  be  aided  but  it  cannot  be  forced.  It  must  have  its  period 
of  gestation.  Allowed  to  come  naturally  into  being  upon 
condition  of  submitting  to  profit-sharing  and  State-control,  it 
would  be  in  consonance  with  all  the  implications  of  the  Law  of 
Struggle,  conflict  with  no  legitimate  interests  nor  be  con- 
fronted by  a  world  in  arms  against  it. 

State  recognition  and  control  of  monopolies  is  not  only 
beneficial  but  essential  for  the  safety  of  the  State.  Otherwise, 
monopolies,  through  the  power  wielded  by  them,  are  in  a  posi- 
tion to  commandeer  the  liberties  of  the  people  and,  in  effect, 
usurp  and  abuse  the  powers  of  government.  Economically, 
those  great  industrial  organizations  that  have  become  virtual 
monopolies  subject  to  occasional  onslaughts  by  the  govern- 
ment, are  enjoying  all  the  advantages  of  capital  employed  at 
risk  although  actually  taking  only  a  potential  risk.  These 
monopolies,  then,  command  all  the  profits  due  capital  as  an 
incident  of  courage  or  the  assumption  of  economic  risk, 
although  really  assuming  no  risk  save  the  risk  of  government 
interference.  Nor,  as  things  are  constituted,  are  these  monop- 
olies under  the  necessity  of  dividing  profits  with  employes. 


114  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

The  application  of  the  principle  of  standardization  and 
the  elimination  of  economic  risk  would  not  only  insure  profit- 
sharing,  but  it  would  save  us  these  ridiculous  railings  against 
great  industrial  organizations  simply  because  they  are  great. 
Nothing  has  shown  more  clearly  how  much  our  thinking  is  out 
of  joint  with  the  basic  necessities  of  struggle  than  the  thun- 
derings  of  our  Government  to  large  undertakings  to  become 
small  or  suffer  dissolution. 

All  things  considered,  one  of  the  most  hopeful  develop- 
ments in  our  economic  welter  is  the  emergence  of  great  indus- 
trial organizations.  By  means  of  them  we  can  promote  and 
take  advantage  of 

(a)  The  consolidation  of  unorganized  enterprises  into 
coherent  units. 

(b)  The  reduction  of  wastage  through  the  elimination 
of  needlessly  duplicated  effort  and  expense  in  production  and 
distribution. 

(c)  The  standardization  of  costs  and  output. 

(d)  The  possibilities  of  reduction  in  costs  due  to  the 
foregoing  conditions. 

(e)  The  increased  possibilities  for  international  conform- 
ity in  production  and  distribution. 

(f )  The  increased  facilities  for  taxation  and  government 
control. 

All  the  foregoing  features  of  great  industrial  organiza- 
tions, added  to  the  guarantee  of  monopoly  given  upon  condi- 
tion of  submitting  to  profit-sharing  and  government  price- 
fixing,  would  stabilize  market-conditions,  organize  the  output 
and  distribution  of  the  world,  and  be  of  incalculable  value  in 
making  the  elementary  struggle  for  an  economic  foothold  a 
minor  instead  of  a  major  effort. 

12.    Private  Ownership  Under  the  Rule  of  Monopoly. 

Under  the  Rule  of  Monopoly  private  ownership  would 
have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  Government  any  more  than  now. 
Every  man  would  be  fully  entitled  to  the  work  of  his  own 
hands  or  to  anything  produced  for  his  own  consumption  or  the 
consumption  of  his  establishment  or  for  any  other  purpose 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  115 

exclusive  of  trade.  There  would  be  no  interference  with  indi- 
vidual production  in  which  there  was  no  element  of  trade 
distribution. 

Any  individual  who  would  regard  himself  self-sufficient 
in  whole  or  in  part,  such  as  small  farmers,  hermits,  and  non- 
gregarious  philosophers,  could  carry  on  their  chosen  methods 
of  living  without  hinderance,  by  simply  registering  the  limited 
nature  of  their  productivity.  It  is  only  when  production  goes 
with  distribution — trade  distribution — that  it  would  have  to 
be  carried  on  only  as  part  of  a  monopoly  in  order  not  to  disturb 
the  standardization  of  values.  In  other  words,  while  private 
ownership  would  still  be  legal,  the  standardization  of  produc- 
tion and  distribution  would  have  to  be  enforced  as  a  require- 
ment of  public  well-being  with  which  no  individual  would  be 
permitted  to  come  in  conflict. 

13.    Land  Ownership  Under  the  Rule  of  Monopoly. 

As  the  Rule  of  Monopolies  would  only  concern  itself  with 
production  and  distribution,  land  as  such  would  not  be  the 
subject  of  monopoly  for  nothing  could  be  gained  by  it. 

Private  ownership  in  land  is  justified  in  the  same  way  as 
private  ownership  of  anything  else — by  acquisition  according 
to  the  standard  of  struggle  prevailing  at  the  time  of  acqui- 
sition. As  for  the  argument  that  land-owners  are  not  entitled 
to  the  ''unearned  increment"  of  land  whose  value  has 
increased  on  account  of  the  growth  of  population  in  its 
vicinity,  this  contention,  if  true  with  reference  to  land,  is 
equally  true  with  reference  to  any  other  commodity  for  Avhich 
the  demand  has  increased  out  of  proportion  to  the  supply. 
The  basis  for  this  contention  about  land  is  the  assumption 
that  ownership  of  land  stands  in  a  different  moral  relationship 
to  man  than  other  things  and  that  the  reason  why  men 
flock  to  the  cities  is  because  land  is  held  out  of  use  due  to 
excessive  taxation  on  building  or  improvement.  But  neither 
of  these  assumptions  are  valid.  Land,  like  any  other  com- 
modity, is  the  prize  of  standardized  struggle.  On  moral 
grounds,  therefore,  the  title  to  land  cannot  be  impugned.  I 
have  also  shown,  I  believe,  that  the  influx  of  populations  from 
agricultural  lands  to  cities,  is  due,  not  to  economic  but  to  psy- 


116  THP]  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

chological  causes.  In  former  times,  cities  were  developed  out 
of  citadels  or  centres  of  collective  struggle  which,  in  turn, 
metamorphosized  into  trade-centers  or  battle-places  for  psy- 
cho-economic struggles  and,  as  such,  were  re-duplicated 
wherever  opportunity  offered.  The  influx  into  cities  at  the 
present  time  is  not  an  attribute  of  defensive  but  of  aggressive 
struggle. 

The  whole  stock  of  Single  Tax  arguments  are  similarly 
unconvincing.  The  advantage  of  a  single  tax  over  many 
forms  of  taxation  is  principally  an  administrative  advantage, 
which  would  also  be  available  under  the  Rule  of  Monopolies. 
The  argument  that  men  cannot  subsist  without  land  is  also 
true  of  the  products  of  land  which,  under  Single  Tax,  would 
remain  in  private  hands  and  still  be  subject  to  the  employment 
of  capital  at  economic  risk.  Furthermore,  the  fact  that 
Smith,  say,  has  * '  improved ' '  the  value  of  his  land  by  building 
a  mansion  on  it,  is  no  reason  for  increasing  the  taxes  on  the 
shack  of  poor  Brown  who  lives  alongside  of  him  or  to  compel 
Brown  to  move  elsewhere.  Finally,  the  confiscation  of  land 
would  be  wholly  unjust,  even  if  it  were  as  practicable  as  it 
is  not. 

Nothing  could  be  gained  by  monopolizing  the  ownership 
of  land,  as  owning  is  but  a  passive  act  as  distinguished  from 
the  improvement  of  land.  Land-improvement  would  be  em- 
braced in  the  activities  of  all  the  other  monopolies  charged 
with  the  exploitation  of  the  soil. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  reason  why  the  State  should  inter- 
fere with  individual  preferences  in  the  matter  of  land-owner- 
ship, save  only  in  such  instances  where  individual  ownership 
would  interfere  with  indispensable  requirements  of  monopoly, 
as  in  mining  lands,  oil  lands,  railroad  beds,  etc.,  which  should 
be  subject  to  the  right  of  eminent  domain  in  the  interest  of  the 
people  as  a  whole,  and  which  can  be  so  acquired  on  behalf  of 
monopolies  decreed  by  the  State  where  these  monopolies  are 
unable  to  acquire  such  lands  by  private  agreement  with  the 
owners. 

But  if  State-monopoly  in  land  is  inexpedient,  it  is  still 
more  unwise  to  permit  private  monopoly  in  land  for  purposes 
of  speculation.    This  can  best  be  prevented: 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  117 

(a)  By  the  levying  of  a  heavy  tax  upon  all  land  held  out 
of  use  or  held  for  speculative  purposes  only. 

(b)  By  forbidding  the  alienation  of  land  to  any  but  direct 
users. 

Those  who  hold  land  for  direct  use,  such  as  farmers,  home- 
steaders and  industrial  operators  would  suffer  no  loss  or  pen- 
alty in  the  land  actually  held  in  use  by  them.  Those  who  hold 
land  for  speculative  purposes  would  simply  have  to  accept  the 
changed  conditions  as  the  result  of  poor  speculation  and  get 
rid  of  their  holdings  to  direct  users  upon  the  best  terms  avail- 
able as  fast  as  possible.  The  effect  of  such  a  policy  would 
be  to  prevent  monopoly  in  land  for  speculative  purposes, 
bring  down  the  price  of  land  to  its  correct  value  as  a  com- 
modity in  actual  use  according  to  its  use.  Land-values  would 
thus  be  forced  to  come  down  to  something  like  legitimate 
levels.  The  pressure  of  an  adequate  tax,  levied  solely  upon 
such  land-holdings  as  are  held  out  of  direct  use,  and  inability 
to  convey  title  to  any  but  direct  users  under  the  law,  would 
divest  land-values  of  speculative  inflation,  effectually  pre- 
vent local  monopolies  in  land,  and  meet  the  well-founded 
objection  of  exponents  of  the  Single  Tax. 

This  policy  would  be  warranted  on  the  score  of  collective 
expeditiousness;  but  even  on  its  ethical  side,  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  land  which  is  held  out  of  use  simply  for  the 
sake  of  possession  is,  in  its  essence,  nothing  but  a  luxury  to 
the  holder,  and  should,  therefore,  be  taxed  as  a  luxury  in 
favor  of  those  who  require  it  as  a  necessity  of  their  struggle. 
No  one  is  in  a  position  to  complain  of  taxes  on  luxuries  or  set 
limits  upon  them.  On  the  other  hand,  land  which  is  held  out 
of  use  for  speculative  reasons — to  await  a  better  price — repre- 
sents a  falsification  of  the  economic  books  of  account,  the 
withholding  of  commodities  needed  for  economic  exchange. 
This  is  a  solecism  in  the  scheme  of  things  which  we  have  the 
right  to  render  expensive  just  as  nature  makes  any  error 
expensive;  an  instance  of  mal-adjustment  in  the  distribution 
of  land  which  must  be  eliminated  just  as  mal-adjustment  in 
the  distribution  of  other  products  will  be  eliminated  through 
the  development  of  legally-recognized,  state-controlled,  profit- 
sharing  monopolies. 

For  tho  it  may  be  conceded  that  the  State  has  no  moral 


118  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

right — even  if  it  had  the  power — to  declare  forfeit  all  private 
ownership  in  land,  it  does  have  the  right  and  the  might  to 
discourage  gambling  in  land  values.  Gambling,  by  the  way, 
is  such  an  assumption  of  economic  risk  as  leaves  neither  pro- 
duction nor  service  in  its  wake  as  far  as  the  economic  interests 
of  the  world  are  concerned.  Those  who  trade  in  commodities 
presumably  give  service  in  bringing  things  from  whence  they 
are  produced  to  places  where  they  are  wanted  or  in  such  form 
as  they  can  be  used.  In  this  sense  trade  is  service  just  as 
truly  as  labor  is  service.  But  the  continual  transfer  of  title 
to  land  as  an  incident  of  land-speculation  is  an  absolutely  bar- 
ren procedure  as  far  as  the  economic  interests  of  the  world  are 
concerned.  Such  transactions  do  not  differ  from  gambling 
upon  the  exchange  or  gambling  with  cards.  The  land  has  not 
been  moved  or  improved  thereby.  Unless,  therefore,  the  land 
has  been  conveyed  to  a  direct  user,  the  transaction  constitutes 
another  gamble,  a  speculation  tending  to  inflate  land  values 
and  thus  increase  the  necessity  for  that  form  of  interhuman 
struggle  or  economic  non-conformity  from  which  we  wish  to 
emerge. 

Thus,  altho  the  State  may  not  and,  indeed,  cannot,  con- 
fiscate land-holdings,  it  can  and  should  discourage  the  holding 
of  land  out  of  use  and  prohibit  land-transfers  in  the  nature  of 
speculations. 

14.    Taxation. 

The  question  of  taxation  has  always  been  a  difficult  one, 
and  to-day,  it  has  become  more  difficult  to  solve  than  ever. 
Our  taxing  systems  are  hopelessly  inept. 

Through  the  medium  of  monopolies  in  the  production  and 
distribution  of  all  products  the  problem  of  taxation  will  be- 
come wonderfully  simplified.  We  have  simply  to  choose 
whether  to  tax  the  profits,  gross  production  or  distribution  of 
every  monopoly.  Whichever  method  we  choose  will  embrace 
the  best  elements  of  proportional  or  progressive  taxation,  will 
be  simple  and  uniform  in  application  and  justly  proportionate 
to  the  income  of  labor  and  capital.  The  tax  would  apply  at 
the  source  of  income,  would  be  paid  at  the  source,  and  would 
thus  become  part  of  the  maintenance  and  distributing  expense 
of  every  monopoly. 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  119 

In  order  to  simplify  the  matter  of  supervision,  standard 
books  of  account  would  be  introduced  and  enforced  in  all 
monopolies. 

Taxation  would  thus  become  simple  and  relatively  inex- 
pensive to  collect. 

15.  Price  Fixing. 

The  real  difficulty  would  lie,  not  in  taxation,  but  in  the 
matter  of  governmental  price-fixing.  The  cost  of  production 
or  distribution  would  have  to  be  taken  into  consideration 
together  with  an  allowable  profit  as  well  as  the  interest  of 
the  consumer.  Under  existing  conditions  such  an  adjustment 
is  really  impossible,  although  under  the  stress  of  war,  govern- 
ments have  gone  through  the  form  of  solving  the  riddle. 
Actually,  they  have  only  succeeded  here  and  there  in  bludgeon- 
ing down  certain  patent  abuses  temporarily,  often  simply 
transferring  them  to  other  economic  spheres. 

Under  the  regime  here  indicated,  however,  our  task  would 
be  wonderfully  facilitated  by  the  standardization  of  values, 
through  the  medium  of  monopolies  in  all  spheres  of  production 
and  distribution.  "We  should  thus  have  the  advantage  of 
dealing  with  static  conditions.  The  enforced  maintenance  of 
standard  books  of  account  would  be  of  aid  in  further  simpli- 
fying the  problem  of  the  standardization  of  prices. 

It  must  be  conceded  that,  from  time  to  time,  in  the  pro- 
cess of  years,  prices  would  have  to  be  re-standardized  in  order 
to  give  the  world  the  benefit  of  improved  productivity  or  to 
increase  prices  where  necessary. 

To  do  this,  no  doubt,  considerable  means  would  have  to 
be  permanently  employed.  Even  so,  however,  the  cost  would 
be  justified  as  relatively  insignificant. 

16.  Profit-Sharing  as  a  Struggle  Requisite. 

Although  there  are  some  undoubted  advantages  to  capi- 
tal in  the  application  of  the  profit-sharing  plan,  the  real  test 
of  its  efficacy  and  indispensability  rests  upon  the  fact  that  it  is 
demanded  by  the  law  of  struggle.    Those  that  demand  peace 


120  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

in  our  economic  relations  cannot  have  it  at  the  price  of  the 
complete  subjection  of  labor.  Sufficient  provision  must  be 
made  to  allow  labor  the  same  realization  or  fulfillment  in 
struggle  that  capital  seeks.  To  expect  to  placate  labor  and 
run  counter  to  its  struggle  is  to  demand  the  impossible. 

Profit-sharing  would  have  the  effect  of  eliminating  a 
degree  of  struggle  that  should  have  been  reached  and  passed, 
the  competitive  struggle  for  the  means  of  subsistence,  a  mean 
stage  in  the  glorious  gamut  of  human  striving.  Profit-sharing 
would  break  the  back  of  inter-human  conflict  which  threatens 
to  reach  almost  cannibalistic  depths.  Profit-sharing  threatens 
no  vested  interests  with  destruction.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
would  prevent  the  accumulation  of  wealth  to  indecent  propor- 
tions by  a  few  in  the  face  of  absolute  destitution  on  the  part 
of  many.  Imagine,  for  example,  if  the  Corporation  X  should 
divide  50  per  cent,  or  80  per  cent,  of  its  total  net  earnings  half 
and  half  with  its  employes,  leaving  the  remaining  20  per  cent, 
to  increase  the  earning  capacity  of  its  plant.  Would  this 
threaten  the  X  Corporation  in  any  vital  respect  1  Let  us  even 
concede  that  some  of  the  stockholders  would  be  out  of  Docket 

L 

to  this  extent.  But  when  we  talk  of  changing  economic  systems 
and  perhaps  revolutions,  this  looks  like  a  very  mild  kind 
of  mulcting.  When  we  further  take  into  consideration  the 
increased  zeal  that  will  be  brought  to  the  work,  the  elimina- 
tion of  strikes  and  all  forms  of  obstructionism,  the  sacrifice  of 
our  imaginary  corporation  seems  almost  tolerable.  Finally, 
profit-sharing  is  not  only  an  economic  requirement,  it  is  a 
psychological  necessity. 

Profit-sharing  with  employes  is  not  only  good  morality 
because  it  provides  labor  with  a  struggle-motive  and  thus 
raises  it  from  a  condition  bordering  on  slavery,  but  it  is  good 
business,  i.  e.,  increases  the  efficiency  of  capital,  because  the 
zeal  or  quality  of  labor  is  enhanced  thereby  so  that  capital 
becomes  more  productive.  Is  it  not  a  decided  advantage  to 
any  enterprise  to  have  the  rank  and  file  sensitive  as  to  its 
success  and  thus  share  the  burden  of  responsibility  with  its 
executives!  It  should  not  be  an  impossible  achievement  to 
find  a  modus  operandi  by  which  both  labor  and  the  entrepeneur 
can  share  in  the  profits  and  have  something  added  to  the  capi- 
tal invested  which,  after  all,  would  thus  accrue  to  the  benefit 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  121 

of  both  through  the  increased  earning  power  of  the  enterprise 
as  a  whole.  It  is  doubtful,  to  say  the  least,  if  capital  would 
not  gain  as  much  and  go  further  by  this  method  than  by 
operating  with  an  indifferent  if  not  hostile  working  personnel 
with  its  strikes  and  incentives  to  waste,  depredation,  etc. 

One  great  advantage  (to  capital)  of  the  profit-sharing 
principle  as  a  practical  measure  lies  in  its  elasticity  and  adap- 
tability to  actual  conditions.  Profits  must  be  in  being  in  order 
to  be  declared  and  must  be  available  in  order  to  be  distrib- 
uted. The  principle  guiding  it,  however,  should  be  fixed 
and  certain,  not  capricious.  Nor  should  the  uncertain  pros- 
pects of  profits  be  allowed  to  take  the  place  of  adequate  wages. 
Profits  should  begin  after  the  limit  of  the  market  wage-scale 
has  been  reached,  especially  where  the  latter  is  only  barely 
adequate. 

Governmental  regulation  can  do  something  to  make  profit- 
sharing  equitable.  If  the  profits  of  our  investors  are  paid 
in  cash  then  a  proportionate  share  of  the  profits  due  to  labor 
would  also  be  paid  in  cash.  If  the  profits  are  not  paid  out 
at  all  during  any  year  but  remain  in  the  enterprise  then 
labor  is  to  be  credited  with  its  proportionate  share  on  the 
books  of  the  enterprise  in  question  until  profits  are  declared. 
A  great  many  other  practical  questions  naturally  suggest 
tliemselves  in  connection  with  the  workings  of  such  a  plan, 
concerning  which  opinions  may  vary,  but  they  are  not  vital  to 
the  main  idea  nor  does  this  seem  to  be  the  place  to  dilate 
upon  them. 

These  questions  may  require  special  study  and  may,  no 
doubt,  be  fraught  with  many  complexities,  but  the  basic  prin- 
ciple of  profit-sharing  is  a  sound  one,  both  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  requirements  of  human  nature  and  economic  adjust- 
ment. The  institution  of  profit-sharing  would  not  run  counter 
to  any  economic  laws,  nor  result  in  confiscation  nor  the  violent 
upheaval  of  industry  or  market  conditions.  No  industry 
would  be  committed  to  any  unwarranted  burden  of  expense 
because,  unlike  wages,  one  year's  scale  of  profits  would  be  no 
criterion  of  the  next  year's  profits. 


122  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

17.    Choosing  Economic  Systems. 

It  seems,  then,  that  the  solution  of  our  economic  problems, 
insofar  as  they  can  and  must  be  solved,  lies  in 

One:  The  elimination  of  economic  risk  from  the  opera- 
tions of  capital,  through  monopoly  and  standardization. 

Two:    Profit-sharing  between  labor  and  capital. 

Three:  International  conformity  in  the  regulation  of 
monopoly  and,  through  this  regulation,  the  universal  stand- 
ardization of  value  and  supply. 

This  looks  like  a  program  of  slow  realization.  Admitted. 
But  is  there  a  more  quickly  realizable  one  in  sight  ?  I  hardly 
think  so.  On  the  other  hand,  this  is  the  program  toward  which 
we  are  tending  anyway,  save  that  it  is  our  power  to  impede  or 
accelerate  its  realization,  depending  upon  the  mental  attitude 
we  bring  to  the  problem. 

The  chief  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  revolutionary  is 
that  he  declines  to  work  with  the  material  which  God  has 
given  him.  He  will  only  work  with  the  motives,  methods  and 
men  of  another  world.  And  yet  we  know  that  whatever 
improvement  may  be  vouchsafed  us  must  develop  from  things 
as  they  are. 

The  manufacturer  who  makes  a  better  shirt  for  less 
money  and  more  of  them  per  day  than  his  competitor  may 
be  actuated  by  a  purely  personal  struggle,  but  the  world  is  the 
gainer  thereby.  The  projector  of  the  large  emporium  or 
department-store  may  be  actuated  by  quite  narrow  motives, 
but  as  the  scope  of  his  struggle  widens,  he  is  compelled  to 
provide  employment  to  thousands  of  others  and,  to  this  extent, 
to  march  with  their  interests.  In  the  economic  field,  these 
motives  and  considerations  are  the  pieces  with  which  it  is 
given  us  to  play. 

Due  consideration  must  be  given  to  the  fact  that  the 
greater  the  struggler  the  more  possibilities  he  opens  up  for 
others.  Nor  can  the  negative  leveling  by  the  small  struggler 
be  regarded  as  an  all-sufficing  substitute  for  the  ability,  genius 
and  daring  of  the  great.  If  it  is  wrong  for  the  employer  to 
prey  upon  labor,  it  is  mean  and  paltry  for  the  employe  to  stand 
in  opposition  to  the  great  struggler  simply  because  he  is 
great.    In  the  main,  the  interests  of  employer  and  employe 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  123 

run  together  and  the  point  of  conflict  only  begins  where  the 
usual  unity  of  interests  cease  to  dove-tail. 

Much  has  been  said  against  exploitation  simply  as  exploi- 
tation. As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  all  exploit  one  another.  The 
government  exploits  the  taxpayers  of  the  country  and  vice 
versa.  The  taxpayers  exploit  the  labor  of  its  school-teachers, 
and  the  school-teachers  exploit  the  taxpayers.  Even  the 
school-children  '' exploit"  and  are  ''exploited."  It  is  all  a 
question  of  just  relationships.  It  serves  no  purpose  to  be 
either  prejudiced  or  intimidated  by  shibboleths. 

Now,  I  contend  that  the  valid  causes  of  antagonism 
between  labor  and  capital  will  be  eliminated  by  the  applica- 
tion and  development  of  the  remedies  above  mentioned,  i.  e., 
the  curtailment  or  increase  of  the  hours  of  labor  in  accord- 
ance with  actual  requirements,  profit-sharing  over  and  above 
market  wages,  standardization  of  values  through  the  growth 
of  monopolies  controlled  by  the  state,  and  international  con- 
formity in  the  regulation  of  international  monopolies  with  a 
view  to  the  standardization  of  the  bases  of  exchange  in  all 
products  between  nations. 

There  are  those  who  believe  in  equality  of  income.  I 
do  not  share  this  view.  Equality  of  income  without  equality 
in  the  ability  to  dispose  of  it  would  leave  things  pretty  much 
as  they  are  in  a  very  short  time.  Besides,  we  should  not  at- 
tempt to  perform  such  an  operation  upon  human  nature  as  will 
tend  to  remove  those  incentives  to  initiative  and  achievement 
which  are  such  a  large  factor,  as  yet,  in  determining  the  limits 
of  our  activity  or  struggle;  for  it  cannot  be  denied  that  for 
the  great  mass  of  human  beings,  income  and  economic  achieve- 
ment generally  constitute  a  large  part  of  the  pain  that 
expresses  itself  in  struggle  and  are  the  measures  of  their 
progress  in  struggle,  as  I  have  tried  to  explain  elsewhere. 
To  most  of  us  the  incubus  of  having  to  provide  for  our  live- 
lihood has  not  been  without  benefit,  regardless  of  the  fact  that 
we  may  feel  called  to  higher  things.  To  many  the  elimination 
of  this  necessity  would  only  result  in  self-indulgence  and  gen- 
eral decline  in  moral  standards;  for  morality  presupposes 
difficult  conditions  of  struggle  to  be  surmounted. 

In  short,  the  law  of  struggle  does  not  co-exist  with  sine- 
cures in  the  economic  field  any  more  than  in  any  other  field. 


124  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

Neither  labor  nor  capital  can  do  without  provision  for  expres- 
sion in  struggle;  existing  conditions  and  all  systems  projected 
for  the  future  will  have  to  square  with  the  law  of  struggle. 
Nevertheless,  the  interests  of  labor  and  capital  are  not  neces- 
sarily antagonistic,  save  only  where  short-sightedness  and 
incontinence  makes  them  so,  just  as  when  partners  quarrel. 
A  recognition  of  the  law  of  struggle  as  a  universal  principle  in 
human  nature  might  lead  to  the  allowance  of  natural  avenues 
of  expression  for  both  sides  and  the  dove-tailing  of  interests. 
For  although  the  law  of  struggle  cannot  be  denied,  it  does  not 
necessarily  involve  economic  antagonism  nor  mutual  destruc- 
tion. The  profit-sharing  principle,  which  is  really  a  very 
ancient  principle  of  equity,  and  a  very  simple  one,  releases 
both  sides  to  the  struggle  for  which  we  are  all  intended,  but 
upon  non-conflicting  lines. 

All  the  schemes  for  economic  conformity  so  far  advanced 
seem  to  be  lacking  in  conformity  with  human  nature.  Who- 
ever wishes  to  re-create  the  economic  world  for  us  upon  a 
new  plan  must  see  to  it  that  his  plan  conforms  to  the  funda- 
mental characteristics  of  human  beings  and  human  relations; 
as,  for  example,  to  the  fact 

That  economic  stress  is  not  ascribable  to  any  class,  caste 
or  set  of  men  but  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  history  of  the 
world  and  the  natural  scheme  of  things ;  and,  whether  intensi- 
fied by  over-population  or  maladjustment,  can  only  be  over- 
come, now  as  heretofore,  by  Struggle — whether  Struggle  takes 
the  form  of  restraint,  improved  production,  re-adjustment  or 
all  of  these  things. 

That  we  are  all  capitalists  by  nature  and  have  the  wish 
to  acquire  apart  from  the  bare  needs  of  existence. 

That  most  of  our  so-called  economic  needs  are  not  ''eco- 
nomic" at  all  but  psychological. 

That,  due  to  these  psychological  needs,  our  economic 
wants  keep  continually  increasing  and  will  continue  to 
increase. 

That  the  spirit  of  acquisition  is,  indeed,  part  of  our 
struggle-nature. 

That,  due  to  the  natural  inequality  in  men,  equality  of 
wealth  is  not  possible  even  if  it  were  desirable — that  inequality 


THE  ECONOMIC  STRUGGLE  125 

of  wealth  is,  in  fact,  only  one  of  the  phases  of  the  inequality 
in  men. 

That,  nevertheless,  the  human  family  has  attained  to  a 
state  of  sensitiveness  which  dictates  that  the  bare  needs  for 
subsistence — or  the  minimum  requirements  of  struggle — shall 
not  be  the  subject  of  interhuman  conflict. 

That  labor  demands  a  share  in  profits  over  and  above 
market-wages,  as  the  psychological  necessity  of  its  struggle. 

That  the  security  of  capital  in  turn  is  dependent  upon 
the  standardization  of  values. 

That  industries  in  the  fullness  of  their  development  tend 
to  large  combinations  or  monopolies. 

That  the  standardization  of  values  can  be  effected  through 
the  growth  of  monopolies  and  international  conformity  in  the 
regulation  of  them. 

That  monopolies  without  the  capacity  to  abuse  their 
powers  are  economically  useful  as  tending  to  eliminate  redu- 
plication of  effort,  disorganization  and  waste. 

That  economic  re-adjustment  upon  less  mortally  con- 
flicting lines  is  dependent,  in  large  measure,  upon  the  security 
of  capital. 

That  labor,  by  co-operating  to  eliminate  economic  risk 
from  the  operations  of  capital,  can  earn  the  right  to  share  in 
profits  over  and  above  market-wages,  through  the  medium  of 
state-recognized  monopolies. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
STRUGGLE  AS  WAR 
1.    From  Peace  To  War. 

TO  ONE  schooled  in  Pain-Struggle,  there  is  still  some- 
thing startling,  tho  nothing  unnatural,  in  war.  War 
reveals  man  in  a  more  elementary  attitude  of  struggle 
than  is  usually  apparent  in  the  complex  ramifications  of  the 
struggles  prevailing  in  peace-times.  The  grocer,  the  baker 
and  the  candlestick-maker  are  also  at  war.  But  it  is  a  strug- 
gle to  which  we  have  become  accustomed  as  something  normal; 
nor  does  it  stand  out  in  such  sharp  relief  as  war,  because  the 
wars  of  trade  and  industry  are  less  picturesque,  its  alignments 
harder  to  discern,  its  attacks  and  defences,  victories  and 
defeats  more  difficult  to  follow. 

Certainly,  war  is  another  manifestation  of  the  law  of 
struggle.  To  say,  however,  that  war  is  a  revelation  of  man  in 
his  more  natural  state  is  a  fallacy,  unless  we  mean  by  the 
word  ** natural"  a  lower  state.  War  is  a  reversion  to  type, 
to  a  lower  standard  of  struggle  as  between  man  and  man. 
Above  all,  war  is  not  synonymous  with  struggle.  It  is  only 
a  phase  of  struggle,  a  small  phase ;  nor  is  it  an  eternally  indis- 
pensable phase.    So  much  for  war  as  war. 

When  war  becomes  part  of  a  great  aspiration,  however, 
it  takes  on  the  character  of  its  aspiration,  becomes  one  with 
it,  and  thus  attains  to  greatness  in  the  scale  of  struggle.  The 
jQnite  becomes  infinite  in  its  implication.  War,  then,  becomes 
a  great  manifestation  of  struggle,  not  because  it  is  war,  but 
because  it  becomes  the  embodiment  of  a  great  idea,  full  of 
innate  religious  force,  transfiguring  all  classes  and  all  rela- 
tions. 

Our  cynics  profess  to  see  no  possible  relationship  between 
war  and  religion.  And  yet,  it  is  the  force  of  religious  convic- 
tion that  prepares  us  spiritually  for  war.  The  religious  feel 
consciously  what  all  human  beings  feel  subconsciously — that 
life  itself  has  nothing  final  in  it.    It  is  only  of  value  and  sig- 

126 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  127 

nificance  in  conjunction  with  struggle.  Only  to  live  is  to  be 
on  a  par  with  the  lowest  of  created  things.  It  is  the  unconscious 
perception  of  this  truth  that  creates  the  background  for  that 
dangerous  psychological  impasse  between  nations  which  is 
apt  to  culminate  in  war.  Man  was  made  to  struggle  and, 
given  a  cause,  no  nation  will  evade  its  struggle  even  if  deaths 
and  destructions  are  incident  to  it. 

It  must  not  surprise  us,  therefore,  when  a  nation  is 
impelled  to  rush  to  arms  in  order  to  avenge  the  killing  of  a  few 
citizens  on  the  sea  or  in  its  border,  where  the  killing  is  an 
infringement  of  its  sovereignty.  It  is  true  that  the  resulting 
war  must  inevitably  involve  the  loss  of  thousands  more,  but 
this  is  no  argument.  It  is  not  the  number  of  those  killed  that 
matters;  it  is  the  significance  of  their  dying  that  counts.  It 
is  one  thing  to  die  fighting  and  quite  another  to  be  cut  down 
like  swine. 

Furthermore,  the  concept  of  nationality  is  inconsistent 
with  submission  to  the  way-of-life  or  individuality  of  another 
nation.  A  passing  wrong  may  be  endured.  But  permanent 
obstruction  to  the  natural  struggle  of  a  nation  cannot  be  tol- 
erated and  is  not  compatible  with  the  maintenance  of  national 
individuality  which  is  the  essence  of  national  differentiation. 

There  are  those  indeed  who  ascribe  this  War  and  all  other 
wars  to  economic  causes,  just  as  they  ascribe  individual 
struggle  to  economic  causes.  I  shall  try  to  show  that  the  wars 
of  nations,  like  the  wars  of  individuals,  are  due,  not  to  eco- 
nomic causes  but  to  the  wish  for  individual  or  ethnic  pre- 
ponderance in  which  economic  mastery  is  an  incident,  a 
weapon. 

Let  us  place  ever  so  much  insistence  upon  the  economic 
pretensions  of  nations,  they  will  not  seem  sufficient  causes  of 
war.  The  hiatus  between  peace  and  war  cannot  be  bridged  by 
such  a  motive.  It  is  only  by  changing  our  conceptions  of  the 
nature  of  human  beings  and  the  real  motivity  in  life  that  we 
can  gain  an  insight  into  the  causes  that  loosen  the  dogs  of  war. 

That  the  individual  is  a  creature  of  struggle  we  have 
seen.  It  cannot  be  expected,  therefore,  that  the  mass  of  indi- 
viduals comprised  in  national  groups  will  be  of  a  different 
clay.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  the  individual  subscribes  to 
certain  standards  of  struggle  and  reckons  with  them,  and  that, 


128  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

on  the  whole,  the  standards  of  struggle  for  the  individual  are 
higher  than  those  set  for  national  groups  by  national  groups. 
Moreover,  when  a  standard  of  struggle  has  been  attained 
among  individuals,  fear  of  the  contumely  of  men  and  the  penal 
statutes  enacted  to  keep  men  to  the  highest  common  standard 
of  struggle,  prevents  the  individual  or,  at  any  rate,  checks 
him  to  a  degree,  from  the  danger  of  falling  back  to  the  old 
abyss  from  whence  he  emerged.  But  while  the  individual  is 
thus  compassed  about  by  his  sense  of  personal  responsibility, 
the  national  group  has  no  standards  of  struggle  to  which  it 
holds  itself  amenable.  Neither  law  nor  tradition  has  fixed  the 
standard  of  struggle  for  the  national  group  and  there  are  no 
dangers  compelling  it  to  a  permanent  standard  of  struggle 
save  only  the  temporary,  shifting  considerations  of  expediency 
or  fear  of  this  or  that  power  or  powers.  Under  these  condi- 
tions, it  is  not  only  difficult  but  practically  impossible  for  one 
isolated  national  group  to  consistently  maintain  a  higher 
standard  of  struggle  than  the  rest  of  the  powers  or  even  to 
hold  permanently  to  any  standard. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  usages  of  national 
groups  in  relation  to  each  other  have  not  kept  pace  with 
the  development  of  the  individual  but  partake  of  the 
atmosphere  of  mutual  suspicion  in  which  they  live.  In  the 
state  of  international  anarchy  in  which  nations  live,  it  is 
natural  for  some  national  groups  to  exist  upon  a  predatory 
basis  and  for  others  to  arm  in  self-defence.  Thus,  although 
nations  as  such  exist  in  a  state  of  anarchy,  it  is  the  predatory 
groups  that  create  the  modus  vivendi  for  the  rest. 

These  being  the  conditions,  it  is  useless  to  rail  against 
armaments  unless  we  are  to  indorse  the  corollary  that  it  is 
wrong  to  defend  ourselves  against  possible  aggression.  It  is  not 
against  armaments  that  we  must  be  opposed  but  against  theft 
— the  theft  of  lands  and  peoples.  Eliminate  the  possibility  of 
the  theft  or  subjugation  of  alien  lands  and  the  whole  reason 
for  armaments  disappears.  What  we  must  attack,  then,  is  not 
armament  but  the  belief  that  there  are  ends  to  be  obtained — 
ends  other  than  self-defense — which  can  only  be  obtained  thru 
the  conflict  of  arms  and  which  are  thought  worthy  of  being 
acquired  through  this  means.  The  resort  to  arms  for  purposes 
of  self-defense  is  certainly  justifiable  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 


STRUGGLE  AS  AVAR  129 

it  is  the  lust  for  ends  other  than  self-defense  which  makes 
national  armaments  necessary  even  for  the  purpose  of  self- 
defense  ! 

War,  then,  is  not  a  crime  in  itself  but  only  when  asso- 
ciated with  a  criminal  object.  A  much  greater  crime  both  to 
the  nation  involved  and  to  the  world  at  large  is  submission  to 
conquest.  Submission  to  conquest  involves,  first,  an  imme- 
diate and  far-reaching  deterioration  of  the  progressive  ele- 
ments in  the  conquered  and  a  degradation  of  its  whole  moral 
gamut;  for  the  forcible  admixture  of  peoples  attendant  upon 
conquest  must  result  in  moral  chaos,  in  which  the  maintenance 
of  a  civic  or  national  conscience  is  indefinitely  suspended  and 
no  man  can  adhere  to  any  standard  or  trust  his  fellow;  and 
the  sinister  influence  of  any  people  debauched  and  degraded 
by  conquest,  must  emanate  to  all  the  world.  Secondly,  the 
resultant  influence  upon  the  conqueror  is  to  numb  his  sensitive 
faculties  with  the  state  of  glut  which  is  the  prelude  of  that 
callousness,  self-indulgence,  moral  obloquy  and  inner  stagna- 
tion characteristic  of  all  surfeited  nations  and  which  must 
ultimately  lead  to  their  undoing.  Third,  submission  by  one 
nation  to  conquest  upsets  the  balance  of  power  among  other 
nations  and  leads  to  that  fatal  feeling  of  insecurity  thruout 
the  world. 

"We  are  familiar  with  this  last  proposition  in  a  general 
way,  but  have  we  ever  stopped  to  consider  its  practical  work- 
ings? It  is  very  simple.    For  example,  if  a  nation,  A,  conquers 

B,  A  must  thereafter  maintain  a  standing  army  to  keep  B  in 
subjection.  Now  C  cannot  afford  to  allow  its  neighbor  A  to 
possess  a  stronger  armament  than  it  (C)  possesses  because  of 
the  menace  constituted  by  this  disparity  in  armed  force.  C 
consequently  feels  compelled  to  increase  its  budget  of  army 
and  navy  expenses,  which  it  proceeds  to  do.    D,  a  neighbor  of 

C,  happens  to  be  in  the  same  relation  to  C  from  a  military 
standpoint  as  C  was  to  A.  As  a  result  of  C's  increase  of 
armament  D,  too,  must  make  an  increased  showing.  And  so 
the  movement  for  increased  armaments  spreads  from  nation  to 
nation. 

It  is  obvious  that  it  would  have  been  far  better  for  B,  as 
well  as  for  the  rest  of  the  world,  if  it  had  fought  until  it  was 
absolutely  destroyed  rather  than  submit  to  conquest.     This, 


130  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

according  to  the  Law  of  Struggle,  is  a  cardinal  sin.  For  a 
single  nation  holding  one  or  more  races  in  subjugation  by 
force,  becomes  a  morass  of  pestilential  proportions,  carrying 
the  gospel  of  permanent  and  increasing  militarism  to  its  neigh- 
bors and  to  all  the  other  countries  of  the  world.  The  most 
intolerable  aspect  of  this  condition  of  affairs  is,  that  on  account 
of  the  burglarious  attacks  upon  the  free  life  of  the  world  by 
these  robber  nations,  other  nations  who  are  content  to  live 
at  peace  with  the  world,  i.  e.,  to  struggle  along  non-destructive 
lines,  like  the  United  States,  are  likewise  compelled  to  arm 
and  to  stimulate  an  enforced  easily-misunderstood  martial 
propaganda  in  self-defense,  until  they,  too,  are  drawn  into  the 
morass  of  militarism  from  which  they  vainly  try  to  escape. 
The  whole  world  is  dragged  willy-nilly  after  the  triumphal 
chariot-wheels  of  the  nations  that  try  to  achieve  success  in 
subjugating  other  peoples.  Thus  it  is  that  blood  cries  for 
blood,  and  no  nation  is  absolved  from  punishment  when  one 
sister  nation  is  permitted  to  be  crushed  by  another. 

It  becomes  apparent,  then,  that  the  whole  guilt  of  the 
military  system  of  the  world  rests  upon  the  shoulders  of  the 
nations  that  rob.  If  nations  were  to  unite  to-day  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  allowing  every  people  the  unrestricted  possession  of 
its  own  soil,  the  entire  military  system  of  the  world  would 
disappear  like  a  nightmare  because  there  would  be  left  no 
object  for  the  maintenance  of  such  enormous  expenditures  of 
thought,  energy  and  resources.  The  whole  paraphernalia  of 
war  would  be  discarded  as  the  junk  of  an  out-worn  form  of 
struggle  peculiar  to  a  hyena-period  in  the  life  of  man.  To 
talk  of  peace,  of  banding  in  organizations  for  the  spreading  of 
the  gospel  of  disarmament,  is  fatuous  where  such  organiza- 
tions or  movements  do  not  place  the  elimination  of  thievery 
and  the  freeing  of  subject  peoples  in  the  foreground  of  their 
peace-programs.  There  can  be  no  peace  save  the  peace  of 
justice,  the  peace  of  right-doing,  of  restoring  to  each  what 
belongs  to  each. 

2.    The  Struggle  for  Ethnic  Preponderance. 

The  problems  occasioned  by  economic  non-conformity  are 
further  complicated,  if  not  created,  by  the  struggle  of  every 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  131 

one  for  individual  preponderance.  Economic  non-conformity 
does  not  necessarily  follow  from  this  state  of  facts  but,  in 
actuality,  it  does,  due  to  the  fact  that  we  have  not  yet  adopted 
a  method  of  keeping  the  economic  avenues  open  for  the 
struggle  of  the  individual  upon  lines  that  will  not  conflict 
with  the  struggle  of  other  individuals.  This  has  already  been 
explained. 

Now  the  problems  of  international  non-conformity  are  in- 
tensified in  exactly  the  same  way,  i.  e.,  by  the  struggle  of  every 
nation  for  ethnic  preponderance.  And  the  solution  must  be 
of  a  similar  order  as  in  the  case  of  the  individual;  channels  of 
natural  expression  for  the  struggle  of  every  nationality  must 
be  provided  but  upon  non-destructive  lines. 

This  can  only  be  accomplished  through  education  in  the 
law  of  struggle  and  its  natural  media  of  expression. 

But  before  we  go  into  this  phase  of  the  matter  further, 
let  us  see  to  what  extent  war  in  general  as  well  as  the  present 
war  in  particular  is  occasioned  by  economic  causes.  We  are 
all  familiar  with  the  oft-repeated  claim  that  Germany  was 
compelled  to  wage  war  upon  the  Allies  because  her  congested 
area  was  insufficient  for  her  population — that  she  was  com- 
pelled to  seek  additional  territory  and  that  she  required  more 
markets,  etc.  Assuming  that  this  is  correct,  for  whom  did 
she  require  these  things,  these  economic  advantages'?  For 
Germany.  What  is  Germany?  An  empire  composed,  in  the 
main,  of  a  confederation  of  tribes  possessing  an  ethnic  identity. 
In  other  words,  Germany  reached  out  to  benefit  itself  eth- 
nically through  the  seizure  of  certain  economic  advantages. 

Thus,  although  Germany  may  be  said  to  have  waged 
war  from  economic  motives,  if  we  please,  these  motives 
are  economic  in  an  auxiliary  sense  only.  Germany  was  seeking 
its  maximum  good,  as  it  understood  it,  for  itself  only  and 
not  for  the  other  nations,  so  that  when  we  say,  for  example, 
that  the  War  is  being  fought  on  economic  grounds,  it  is  a 
misnomer.  The  truth  is  that  the  War  is  fought  on  ethnic 
grounds,  that  is,  each  nation  seeks  its  greatest  economic, 
political  and  cultural  advantages  for  itself — as  auxiliaries  for 
its  continued  ethnic  preponderance.  Thus,  Germany  is  not 
interested  in  the  well-being  of  its  children  in  other  lands 
unless  they  persist  as  Germans.    If  they  prosper  as  newly- 


132  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

constituted  Englishmen  or  Frenchmen,  Germany  considers 
them  alienated  and  lost  which,  indeed,  is  the  fact.  The  same 
holds  good  with  reference  to  the  attitude  of  the  other  nations 
toward  its  emigrants.  This  is  an  unavoidable  position  if  we 
believe  in  nationalities  as  distinct  ethnic  entities.  No  nation 
by  nature  committed  to  the  principle — as  all  of  them  are — 
that  its  ethnic  continuity  must  be  maintained  and  promoted, 
will  look  with  equanimity  upon  the  submergence  of  its  sub- 
jects in  alien  areas. 

It  is  folly  to  infer  from  this  that  the  continued  existence 
of  different  races  and  nationalities  is  an  evil  which  must  be 
extirpated,  as  the  so-called  cosmopolitanist  holds.  Without 
entering  into  a  lengthy  discussion  of  this  question,  it  should 
suffice  to  say  that  the  climates  of  the  world,  if  nothing  else, 
are  pledged  to  the  perpetuation  of  different  races  of  men. 
National  forms  are  simply  the  natural  expression  of  the  life- 
experience  of  large  ethnic  groups.  This  they  can  no  more 
eliminate  than  we  can  shed  our  skins.  Can  Chinamen  by  an 
act  of  will  become  Britons?  Can  the  Eskimo  become  a  Zulu? 
In  the  same  way,  one  must  be  obtuse  to  imagine  that  the 
Frenchman  can  at  will  become  a  German  or  vice  versa  or  the 
Jew  become  an  Irishman.  In  short,  the  existence  of  different 
races  and  nationalities  in  the  world  is  a  fact  in  nature  which 
must  be  accepted  as  axiomatic. 

Racial  or  national  differentiation  is  as  sacred  and  invio- 
lable as  the  individuality  of  persons,  except  more  so.  Devel- 
opment of  racial  groups,  as  of  individuals,  is  only  possible 
upon  terms  of  freedom  for  the  expression  of  natural  differen- 
tiation. There  is  no  other  way  of  life.  Interference  with 
national  differentiation  is,  therefore,  a  crime. 

We  are,  therefore,  committed  to  two  axioms.  One,  of  the 
basic  nature  of  struggle;  two,  of  the  permanent  and  basic 
nature  of  national  differentiation. 

From  these  two  axioms  follow  two  concomitants.  From 
the  first,  which  includes  the  acceptance  of  struggle  as  a  law 
of  life,  flows  the  concomitant  that  it  is  wrong  to  surrender. 
''Thou  shalt  not  surrender"  may  be  said  to  be  a  law  of  all 
life  actuating  the  most  unnoticeable  creation  of  the  universe 
alike  with  the  Indian  chanting  his  death-hymn  and  the  nation 
battling  until  its  last  man  falls  and  its  women  die  by  their 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  133 

own  hand.  There  is  no  transcending  this  law  in  any  code  of 
morality  that  has  ever  been  formulated.  The  concomitant  of 
the  second  axiom,  i.  e.,  of  the  basic  nature  of  national  differen- 
tiation, is  that  each  nation  must  struggle  to  maintain  its 
identity  at  all  costs. 

The  question  suggests  itself,  doubtless,  how  can  we  expect 
the  elimination  of  war  since  it  has  already  been  conceded  that 
struggle  is  inevitable  in  itself  and  also  for  the  maintenance  of 
national  individuality?  I  have  already  said,  however,  that 
struggle  is  not  synonymous  with  war.  There  are  innumerable 
forms  of  struggle.  For  example,  I  am  struggling  now  when 
I  strive  through  this  medium  to  impose  these  ideas  upon  the 
reader.  We  know  of  many  struggles  carried  on  similarly 
which  have  prevailed  although  the  armed  forces  of  the  enemy 
were  aligned  in  opposition. 

Again,  we  have  already  seen  that  the  real  object  of  war  is 
ethnic  preponderance  and  also  that  ethnic  preponderance 
obtained  through  war  is  deceptive,  temporary  and  vicious 
even  in  its  resultant  influence  upon  the  conquerors.  Unless 
one  nation  absolutely  destroys  another — which  is  an  absolutely 
barren  act — no  permanent  conquest  is  possible  through  war. 
The  Norman  French  set  out  to  conquer  England  which,  tech- 
nically speaking,  they  did.  After  a  few  generations  of  French 
rule,  however,  the  garrison  of  conquerors  absolutely  disap- 
peared, swallowed  up  by  the  alien  life  upon  which  they  had 
come  to  impose  their  will,  so  that  their  traces  are  hardly 
discernible,  save  to  the  student  of  genealogical  trees  and  pet- 
rified customs.  France  has  since  received  many  a  beating  at 
the  hands  of  England,  and  its  poor  Norman  province  with  it. 
Swords  decided  nothing  here.  The  decisive  element  was  the 
elementary  qualities  in  the  genius  of  the  people.  In  other 
words,  not  war,  but  strength  of  soul,  the  spiritual  forces  of 
people  decide  as  to  who  shall  prevail,  if  either,  or  whether  the 
struggle  shall  be  a  drawn  one.  The  idea  that  one  nation  may 
foist  its  spirit  upon  another  merely  through  the  resulting  issue 
of  a  battle  is  an  absurdity.  Where  such  a  thing  did  occur — as 
through  the  conquest  of  one  small  tribe  by  another — the  result 
is  traceable  to  the  fact  that  there  was  no  real  ethnic  difference 
between  the  conflicting  races  and  the  war  was  simply  a  crude 
mode  of  contact  and  amalgamation,  although  the  adversaries 


134  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

were  too  blinded  by  prejudice  to  appreciate  the  fact.  Nature 
itself  decides  the  justice  of  the  case. 

Take,  for  example,  the  Jewish  nation.  According  to  all 
rules  of  military  philosophy  they  should  have  been  swallowed 
up  and  utterly  submerged  in  the  maelstrom  of  opposing  races 
among  whom  they  persist,  relatively,  a  handful. 

Had  the  ethnic  difference  between  the  Jews  and  the  rest 
of  the  world  been  slight  or  had  the  Jewish  people  been  defi- 
cient in  its  ethnic  will-power,  these  exiles  from  the  east  could 
not  have  survived  the  temptation  to  surrender  and  be  at  peace, 
under  the  pressure  put  upon  them  from  without.  It  is  folly 
to  ascribe  their  continued  persistence  to  the  fact  that  they 
lived  in  Ghettos.  One  might  say  with  equal  truth,  The  Rus- 
sians held  out  for  a  number  of  months  against  attack  at  Port 
Arthur  because  they  lived  in  a  fort !  Were  the  Russians  under 
compulsion  to  live  in  a  fort?  They  might  have  come  out  and 
surrendered  as,  indeed,  they  ultimately  did.  So,  too,  the 
Jews  might  have  come  out  from  behind  Judeangasse  and 
Ghetto-wall,  embraced  the  religion  of  their  oppressors  and 
submitted  to  the  will  of  the  conqueror.  This  privilege  has 
always  been  open  to  them.  What  prevented  them?  Briefly, 
strength  of  soul,  persistence  of  the  national  will  to  struggle 
as  an  ethnic  entity.  This  they  did  without  armaments,  mili- 
tary organizations  and  the  like  which  were  an  arm  of  defence 
which  th,ey  had  lost  in  the  wars  with  Rome.  The  rabbis,  who 
were  then  the  accredited  leaders  of  the  Jewish  masses  and 
the  captains  of  the  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands,  devised 
by  every  means  within  their  power  to  create  a  kind  of  intel- 
lectual discipline  governing  every  action  of  the  daily  life  of 
the  Jew,  through  which  the  solidarity  and  national  identity  of 
the  people  might  be  maintained  in  the  face  of  the  multifarious 
centres  of  attack  radiating  from  alien  environments.  Some- 
times these  rabbinical  leaders  gave  fanciful  reasons  for  their 
injunctions,  but  the  instinct  which  begot  them  was  always 
the  same,  the  conservation  of  the  national  identity.  As  the 
conception  of  national  distinctiveness  could  only  be  instilled 
through  this  intellectual  discipline,  it  followed  that  they  held 
the  ignorant  Jew  in  abhorrence  ( ' '  Split  him  open  like  a  fish ! ' ' 
one  rabbi  said)  because  they  felt  that  in  the  limited  mode  of 
struggle  open  to  the  nation,  the  illiterate  individual  had  no 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  135 

bold  upon  the  national  life-line  and  must  be  submerged  by  any 
chance  wave  from  the  ocean  of  alien  environment.  So,  too, 
with  the  instinct  of  the  herd  for  seeking  out  its  own  best  inter- 
ests, at  times  they  would  not  re-admit  a  renegade,  no  matter 
how  repentant  nor  what  the  impelling  force  that  resulted  in 
his  apostasy!  So,  also,  dissentients  could  not  be  tolerated 
in  the  state  of  siege  in  which  the  Jews  were.  In  fact,  quite  an 
interesting  study  could  be  made  by  the  biologist  of  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  struggle  of  the  herd  as  developed  in  an  intellectual 
people  driven  by  necessity  to  novel  methods  of  defence. 

Now  I  simply  cite  the  foregoing  facts  about  this  power- 
fully-struggling people  by  way  of  pointing  out  how  profound 
the  matter  of  ethnic  struggle  really  is  and  how  pitifully  inade- 
quate a  struggle  through  force  of  arms  alone  is  to  give  one 
race  preponderance  over  another.  The  victory  is  simply  not 
to  be  gained  in  that  manner.  Such  victories  are  merely  super- 
ficial and  short-lived.  Can  we  really  entertain  the  idea  that 
military  legions,  drilled  to  wield  the  short-sword  or  the  rifle, 
can  superimpose  their  spirit  upon  a  matured,  cultivated 
nation?  Doubtless,  they  can  create  waste-places,  they  can 
destroy  and  bring  degradation  in  their  wake.  But  that  is  the 
limit  of  their  capacity. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  attack  of  German  militarism  upon 
the  normal  struggle  of  the  world  is  not  due  to  economic  con- 
siderations, but  to  the  craving  for  racial  preponderance  and 
to  the  assumption  that  it  is  permissible  and  practicable  to 
attain  it  by  ** blood  and  iron." 

The  whole  world  is  rife  with  the  onsets  of  different  races 
and  different  mixtures  of  races  clamoring  for  supremacy !  Why 
the  clamor  ?  What  do  all  these  raucous  voices  hope  to  accom- 
plish f  Deep  in  the  soul  of  every  inhabitant  lies  the  sure  seed 
of  inevitable  persistence  or  disintegration.  Time  will  tell 
whether  the  composition  of  the  one  or  the  other  is  such  as  to 
entitle  him  to  a  distinct  existence  in  the  ethnic  state  in  which 
he  arrived.  If  their  differentiation  is  sufficiently  great,  if  they 
have  sufficient  ethnic  soul  to  justify  distinctive  ethnic  exist- 
ence, heaven  and  earth  will  see  to  it  that  their  points  of  dis- 
similarity are  maintained  to  the  extent  to  which  nature  and 
their  strength  of  spirit  entitles  them.  In  the  meantime,  they 
have  their  great  reservoirs  of  national  inspiration  and  culture. 


136  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

their  own  homelands ;  and  if,  despite  these  sources  of  strength- 
ening influence,  they  cannot  maintain  themselves  in  foreign 
areas  as  distinct  entities,  they  do  not  deserve  nor  have  they 
the  right  to  be  so  maintained  by  force  of  arms.  The  German 
resort  to  arms  in  such  a  case  is  the  last  argument  of  a  weakling 
attempting  something  beyond  his  natural  capacity.  It  is  the 
act  of  one  sick  with  self-love  enviously  polluting  the  food  he 
cannot  eat.  Nations  dedicated  to  such  an  unfair  method  of 
struggle  are  the  enemies  of  mankind,  as  well  as  themselves. 

Most  of  the  belligerents  in  this  war  have  their  own 
national  reservoirs,  they  hold  sovereign  sway  over  the  land 
which  constitutes  the  national  domicile  and,  save  for  the  war 
into  which  they  have  been  plunged,  the  continuity  of  their 
national  life  is  secure.  But  how  about  those  nations  who  are 
without  a  home  of  their  own  ?  Are  they,  too,  not  entitled  to  a 
reservoir  of  national  energy,  a  place  in  the  sun  of  life?  For 
them  the  struggle  to  maintain  their  national  identity  in  other 
lands  is  a  hundred  fold  more  difficult  because  they  have 
nowhere  whence  to  draw  sustenance  with  which  to  refresh 
their  souls  in  the  hard  and  unremitting  war  which  the  world 
is  making  upon  them.  Is  peace  on  earth  thinkable  without 
justice  to  the  small  nationality?  No,  it  is  not  thinkable  and 
there  will  be  no  peace  without  justice  to  all  that  have  been 
despoiled.  The  epoch-making  character  of  this,  as  distin- 
guished from  all  other  wars,  is  that  this  issue  has  at  least  come 
into  clear  relief  and  that  the  Allies  recognize  that  their  own 
safety  is  bound  up  with  the  rectification  of  this  injustice. 

3.    Germany  in  the  Scale  of  Struggle. 

Germany  offers  an  interesting  example  of  a  people  in 
whom  the  progress  of  sensitization  has  been  arrested — tem- 
porarily, let  us  hope.  Forty-odd  years  of  class  military  pound- 
ing, superimposed  upon  a  historic  experience  of  the  same 
general  order,  has  hessianized  finer  sensibilities.  It  is  signifi- 
cant that  Germany  has  latterly  declined  as  a  factor  in  art, 
literature,  music  and  religion.  Only  in  science,  industry  and 
trade,  that  is,  in  the  materialistic  perception  of  sensitive  exist- 
ence, has  it  been  noteworthy.  Politically  it  has  rem.ained 
stunted  since  that  abortion  of  1848  which  some  dignify  with 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  137 

the  name  of  revolution.  Its  socialist  majorities  have  signified 
nothing.  There  was  no  more  humanitarianism  or  religious 
fire  back  of  these  political  showings  than  in  the  stockholders 
of  any  corporation  clamoring  for  larger  dividends.  They 
have  converted  a  movement,  valuable  as  a  movement  of  pro- 
test, into  a  guild !  More  and  still  more  wages,  better  and  still 
better  working  hours  and  conditions,  pensions  and  insurance 
funds,  was  the  polestar  of  their  new  guild.  Hence  when  a 
great  moral  issue  came  to  them  they  could  only  respond — like 
a  guild !  Of  the  insistence  on  that  minimum  of  political  liberty, 
which  the  peoples  of  England,  France  and  the  United  States 
regard  as  the  holy  sign  manual  and  indispensable  requisite  of 
human  worth,  there  has  been  no  great  sign,  save  on  the  part  of 
a  heroic  few. 

German  militarism  has  this  in  common  with  all  small 
egos,  with  all  those  in  the  lower  scale  of  struggle,  that  sup- 
pression and  destruction  follow  in  its  wake  instead  of  fructifi- 
cation and  expansion  which  are  incident  to  great  strugglers. 
The  great  straggler's  way  upward  is  by  enlisting  the  forward 
impulses  of  all  that  he  meets  in  his  way  and  persuading  them 
to  travel  with  him.  The  way  of  the  small  straggler  is  by 
trying  to  crush  under  foot  all  that  stand  in  opposition.  This 
is  the  brutal,  limited  conception  of  straggle  upheld  by  the 
militarist.  That  is  why  the  great  heart  of  the  world  beats 
against  Germany  to-day  and  why  German  militarism  will 
never  attain  to  the  world-empire  it  covets. 

The  Germans  have  and  maintain  a  wonderful  military 
organization,  but  it  cannot  stand  up  against  the  natural  organi- 
zation of  the  world  and  its  normal  interests.  The  only  great 
empire-building  people  of  the  world,  the  British,  almost  al- 
ways brought  order  out  of  chaos.  The  British  are  not  a  very 
logical  people;  but  they  are  a  sensitive  people,  blessed  with 
the  saving  grace  of  intuition,  which  has  enabled  them  to  sense 
the  fitness  of  things  in  almost  every  crisis.  Their  strength 
comes  from  placing  things  in  right  relation  to  each  other  and 
deriving  their  political  advantages  and  their  safety  from  seek- 
ing the  natural  position  of  things.  Hence  they  are  able,  with 
a  relative  handful  of  soldiers,  to  control  an  empire  so  vast! 
German  militarism,  on  the  other  hand,  proposes  to  encompass 
world-empire  by  bringing  chaos  out  of  order — by  trying  to 


138  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

stand  nations  and  peoples  on  their  heads  in  the  interests  of 
Germany.    It  is  not  a  conception  born  to  success. 

The  Germans,  unlike  the  British,  are  an  extremely  logical 
people.  In  fact,  they  have  carried  their  logical  propensity  so 
far  that  they  have  rationalized  the  human  element  out  of 
existence  and  become  quite  positive  and  conceited  about  it. 
The  fact  is,  however,  as  I  have  tried  to  explain  elsewhere,  we 
are  not  at  all  rational  but  poor,  intuitive  creatures  to  whom  an 
iota  of  intuition  is  more  decisive  than  a  ton  of  rationalism. 
The  German  attachment  to  the  syllogism  has  led  them  to 
misread  the  heart  of  the  world  and  their  place  in  the  scheme 
of  things.  For  example,  all  the  junker-philosophers  in  Ger- 
many have  been  preaching  for  generations  that  the  State  is 
non-moral  and  is  not  amenable  to  the  laws  of  morality  in  its 
relations  to  other  states.  This  they  deduced  from  the  fact 
that  there  were  no  enforceable  standards  (of  struggle)  among 
nations  as  there  are  among  individuals.  It  is  a  fact  that  there 
are  no  enforceable  standards  among  nations,  but  there  are 
human  standards.  But  it  has  remained  for  Germany,  with 
sledge  hammer  logic,  to  deduce  that,  because  the  standards  of 
humanity  could  not  be  enforced  in  international  relations, 
therefore,  they  did  not  exist  and  to  act  accordingly. 

It  is  right  and  proper  for  a  state  that  is  both  logical  and 
non-moral  to  commandeer  the  intellect  of  the  nation,  to  enforce 
the  cult  of  junkerism  thru  the  state-paid  professoren.  The 
junkers,  as  mainstays  of  a  non-moral  State,  are  not  amenable 
to  the  ordinary  rules  of  morality  either  in  relation  to  the 
civilian  in  Germany  or  to  the  civilian  in  an  enemy  country  or 
to  the  enemj^  in  arms.  Naturally,  this  state  of  non-morality 
in  the  professorial  and  junker  class  has  its  repercussions  in 
other  lower  and  wider  quarters  in  Germany.  The  Germans, 
let  it  be  remembered,  are  very  patriotic;  and  the  object  of 
their  patriotism  is  non-moral.  Is  it  difficult,  then,  to  image 
the  relation  between  the  German  mind  and  the  German  act 
as  revealed  in  the  great  drama  of  the  war? 

But  all  the  manifestations  of  the  logicalness  of  the  Ger- 
man mind  have  yet  to  reveal  themselves.  It  will  lead  them 
on  to  every  resort  and  expedient  with  a  terrible  thoroughness, 
until  all  the  blood,  all  the  resources,  all  the  last  ounce  of 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  139 

strength  shall  have  been  used  up.  The  millions  of  captives  in 
Germany,  so  resourcefully  employed  in  order  to  release  more 
men  to  the  firing  lines,  are  useful  enough  as  far  as  German 
logic  can  see.  Actually,  however,  they  are  only  serving  to 
make  the  destruction  of  the  German  man-power  more  com- 
plete. But  Germany  cannot  escape  the  uncanny  power  of  the 
demands  created  by  its  own  reasoning.  It  must  go  on  to  the 
end. 

Of  course,  the  non-morality  of  the  German  State  is  really 
immoral;  but  it  does  not  avail  us  to  call  it  names.  It  is  a 
different  order  of  morality  than  we  profess  and  only  rela- 
tively immoral.  Actually,  it  is  a  kind  of  morality,  inferior 
in  the  scale  of  struggle,  it  is  true,  and  founded  upon  the 
assumption  that 

(a)  The  duty  of  every  German  is  to  Germany  only; 

(b)  That  every  other  state  is  a  legitimate  object  of  prey; 

(c)  That  all  recognized  standards  can  properly  be  sus- 
pended where  there  is  any  kind  of  conflict  of  interests 
between  Germany  and  other  states; 

(d)  That  the  physical,  moral,  cultural  and  economic 
ascendency  of  one  state  over  another  can  best  be 
gained  and  maintained  by  military  conquest. 

It  is  a  fact  that  it  is  not  Germany  alone  who  always  har- 
bored such  conceptions.  But  it  has  remained  for  Germany, 
in  our  days,  to  consciously  and  unflinchingly  adopt  a  state- 
morality  which  set  the  standards  of  individual  morality  at 
naught,  practically  saying,  ^'Evil,  be  thou  my  good!" 

In  dealing  with  Germany,  therefore,  it  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  realize  that  we  are  dealing  here  with  a  peculiar 
state-morality;  and  that  whether  this  Germany  speaks  fair 
words  or  foul  it  is  still  speaking  from  the  defenses  dictated 
by  its  political  Code.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  it  is  because 
the  Allied  statesmen  intuitively  feel  this  to  be  the  case,  that 
they  decline  to  enter  into  pourparlers  with  Germany  before 
receiving  unmistakable  evidence  that  something  has  happened 
in  Germany  indicating  that  its  dangerous  state-morality  has 
been  supplanted.  So  far,  the  only  human  accents  that  have 
proceeded  from  Germany  have  been  uttered  by  a  very  heroic 
few,  barely  discernible  in  the  dominant  note  of  militarism. 


140  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

There  are  some  who  profess  a  certain  admiration  for  the 
fight  Germany  is  making.  Certainly,  there  are  elements  of 
fascination  in  almost  any  form  of  struggle.  But,  tho  we  can- 
not but  concede  the  enormous  capacity  of  Germany  in  this  re- 
spect, it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  this  War  was  begun  by 
Germany,  not  as  a  struggle  in  the  heroic  meaning  of  the  word, 
but  as  an  act  of  aggression,  an  abuse  of  power.  It  was  a 
crime  conceived  in  the  night,  to  make  a  sudden  and  overwhelm- 
ing onslaught  upon  the  unsuspecting  world.  Why  did  Ger- 
many go  to  war?  Nobody  pressed  it — it  suffered  from  no 
external  abuse — none  invaded  its  prerogatives.  It  is  not  in 
the  spirit  of  divine  struggle  but  sheer  ponderous  brutality 
when  a  first-class  power  goes  marauding  among  weaker  neigh- 
bors of  supposedly  lesser  resisting  force.  Struggle — that  is, 
struggle  for  both  opponents — presupposes  a  certain  equality 
in  opposing  forces.  This  fundamental  element  of  struggle  is 
so  strongly  ingrained  in  us  that  we  can  seldom  sympathize 
with  an  antagonist  who  is  manifestly  too  powerful  for  his 
opponent.  The  War  is  a  struggle  in  relation  to  the  Allies  and 
was  so  at  the  start.  In  relation  to  Germany,  it  was  conceived 
as  a  windfall  and  began  to  assume  the  proportions  of  a 
struggle  later. 

It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  the  Germans  have  proven 
themselves  very  proficient  in  the  business  of  war.  This  is 
due,  primarih^  to  the  fact  that  their  state-morality  has  induced 
a  state  of  mind  which  leaves  the  field  clear  for  whatever  action 
is  deemed  necessary  to  accomplish  the  end  in  view  and  this 
without  any  great  resolves  or  halting  judgments.  Secondly, 
the  comparative  lack  of  sensitiveness  and  individuality  in  the 
masses,  admits  of  easy  handling  of  large,  docile  groups  in  long 
preparation  for  war  as  part  of  their  daily  existence.  Thus, 
Germany  was  not  only  prepared  in  the  technique  of  war.  It 
was  mentally  prepared.  The  difficulties  of  the  civilian  are  not 
his  fear  of  the  actual  field  of  battle  so  much  as  his  aversion 
to  donning  the  soldier's  straight-jacket.  It  is  his  dread  of  this 
change  of  life  which  is  the  most  difficult  to  overcome.  For 
Germany  to  proceed  to  war  was  only  to  carry  the  day's  busi- 
ness one  step  further.  With  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  it  was  an  embarkation  into  a  new  and  strange  world. 
That  they  have  done  it  is  one  of  the  miracles  of  truly  great 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  141 

struggle  and  should  forever  discredit  the  claim  of  the  profes- 
sional militarist  to  supremacy  in  the  scale  of  struggle. 

From  the  standpoint  of  Struggle,  it  would  be  a  world- 
calamity,  greater  by  far  than  the  War  itself,  for  the  Central 
Powers  to  win.  A  drawn  result  would  even  be  worse  because 
the  whole  world  would  have  to  remain  in  arms  indefinitely 
and  the  military  caste  system  of  Germany  would  be  fastened 
— like  an  iron  collar — upon  the  neck  of  humanity.  Brute  force 
would  again  become  the  apparent  measure  of  success  in 
struggle  and  international  distrust  a  permanent  article  of 
faith.  Democracy  would  be  banished  as  belonging  to  a  differ- 
ent order  of  struggle. 

To  break  the  dead-lock  and  restore  the  normal  order  of 
struggle  between  nations,  one  of  two  things  must  occur. 
Either  the  Allies  must  break  the  military  resistance  offered  by 
the  enemy  and  coincidently  usher  in  a  revolution  which  will 
discredit  and  destroy  the  state-morality  which  is  at  the  root 
of  this  onslaught  upon  the  world,  or  this  revolution  must  take 
place  among  the  Central  Powers  without  such  a  victory  by 
the  Allies.  Certainly,  an  Allied  victory  unaccompanied  by 
revolution  would  be  a  sterile  attainment.  For  the  object  of 
the  Allied  effort,  as  I  conceive  it,  is  not  merely  a  formal  mili- 
tary triumph,  but  to  drive  home  to  the  masses  of  the  Central 
Powers  such  a  degree  of  sensitiveness  as  will  make  them 
conscious  of  the  enormity  and  futility  of  the  mode  of  struggle 
they  have  permitted  themselves  to  adopt  in  relation  to  the  rest 
of  mankind. 

But  far  more  important  and  fundamental  than  any  mili- 
tary decision,  is  the  correct  understanding  by  all  the  nations 
of  the  law  of  struggle  and  the  resultant  conclusion  that  ethnic 
preponderance  is  not  attainable  by  military  conquests ;  that  no 
nation  is  entitled  to  ethnic  proponderance,  just  as  no  person  is 
entitled  to  individual  preponderance,  save  only  and  to  the 
extent  only  to  which  we  unconsciously  influence  others  by  what 
we  are,  by  the  natural  revelation  of  the  sensitiveness  that  is  in 
us  in  fulfilling  our  measures  of  pain.  Doubtless,  this  cannot  be 
fully  conveyed  by  the  telling  alone,  it  must  be  conveyed  in 
the  draughts  of  pain  we  are  imbibing,  and  the  War  is  one  of 
the  avenues  by  which  this  knowledge  will  come  to  us. 


142  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

To  those  to  whom  life  is  an  expression  of  the  so-called 
will-to-live  this  War  will  doubtless  come  as  an  indictment  of 
God,  since  he  is  setting  his  own  law  at  naught.  But  this 
War  ought  to  revise  our  conception  of  the  aim  of  existence. 
To  those  to  whom  the  Law  of  Struggle  and  the  Will  to  Strug- 
gle are  the  basis  of  life,  this  War,  like  all  phenomena,  is  one 
more  evidence  of  the  insignificance  of  all  other  forms  of 
motivity.  The  terror  and  the  glory  of  war  is  that  it  is  one  of 
the  most  lurid  phenomena  disclosing,  as  through  a  flash  of 
lightning,  how  all  the  important  things  of  life  fall  away  from 
us  beside  the  awful  Law  of  Struggle.  For  once,  if  at  no  other 
time,  we  are  able  to  see  ourselves  elementally,  and  the  Law  by 
which  we  live.  War,  it  is  true,  is  a  cruder  level  of  struggle 
than  we  have  developed  for  ourselves.  It  is  not  only  cruder 
but  is  a  feebler  manifestation  of  the  possibilities  of  struggle 
that  is  within  us.  On  this  account,  it  involves  all  the  greater 
exertion,  not  on  the  part  of  the  professional  soldier,  but  on 
the  part  of  those  that  have  war  thrust  upon  them.  For  the  lat- 
ter, war  often  offers,  not  an  extension  of  the  possibilities  of 
struggle,  but  demands  rather  a  contraction  of  individual  strug- 
gle in  line  with  the  requirements  of  mass  effort.  It  is  in  this 
sense  that  war,  although  representing  struggle  on  a  lower 
scale,  demands  the  supreme  effort  of  the  individual. 

Cruel,  implacable,  heart-rending  and  wasteful  as  this  War 
is,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  constitutes  an  indictment  against 
God  any  more  than  any  other  war  that  ever  took  place  can 
be  so  regarded.  War  certainly  belies  the  God  of  the  will-to- 
live  but  not  the  God  of  the  Will-to-Struggle.  The  evidence  of 
the  ages  is  that  wo  have  emerged  from  war,  that  our  sensitive- 
ness has  been  quickened  by  it,  that  succeeding  wars  have 
tended  to  increase  the  standards  of  struggle,  that  the  mon- 
strosities of  savagery  have  given  way  or,  rather,  flowered  into 
chivalries  which,  in  turn,  have  developed  into  the  amenities 
of  struggle  which  constitute  our  normal  life  to-day.  The  fact 
that  Germany  has  suffered  a  relapse,  simply  evidences  that  in 
her  the  processes  of  sensitization  have  not  yet  reached  the 
stage  of  development  that  had  been  claimed  for  her. 

If,  as  a  result  of  this  awful  bloodshed  and  universal  suffer- 
ing, this  generation  is  able  to  pass  on  to  succeeding  genera- 
tions a  more  sensitive  world,  one  in  which  the  invasion  of 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  143 

another's  right  will  be  regarded  as  a  horror  pregnant  with 
calamity,  in  which  every  people  will  cease  to  be  the  prey  of 
another  and  in  which  the  whole  direction  of  human  struggle 
will  tend  toward  mutually  helpful  channels,  will  this  War 
have  been  fought  in  vain? 

4.    Bolshevism  in  the  Scale  of  Struggle. 

The  movement  in  Russia  that  goes  under  the  name  of 
Bolshevism  can  be  viewed  under  several  different  aspects, 
each  suggesting  a  contributing  cause.  As  a  purely  Russian 
movement,  Bolshevism  is  a  reflex  of  Russian  self-indulgence 
from  the  tyranny  of  Czarism;  it  is  compounded  also  of  war- 
weariness,  abetted,  financed  and  accelerated  by  Germany 
because  of  its  disintegrating  influence  upon  the  unity  and 
military  effectiveness  of  the  Russian  people. 

But  Bolshevism  is  also  an  intellectual  movement.  It  is 
a  logical  culmination  of  socialist  doctrine;  and  it  is  from  this 
aspect  that  Bolshevism  bears  a  sinister,  universal  meaning  to 
the  world. 

There  are  socialists,  to  be  sure,  who  repudiate  Bolshevism. 
And  yet  Bolshevism,  apart  from  certain  natively  Russian  ear- 
marks which  characterize  it,  follows  naturally  from  the 
socialist  premise.  This  is  why  there  are  such  unmistakable 
symptoms  of  it  in  all  countries  in  which  socialism  has  obtained 
a  foot-hold.  It  is  only  in  Germany  that  Bolshevism  has  made 
the  least  headway,  and  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  German 
socialism,  despite  the  universalist  aims  of  its  early  de-nation- 
alized Jewish  projectors,  has  remained  nothing  but  a  German 
guild.  Hence,  German  socialists,  intensely  ethnic  as  they  are, 
in  rejecting  Bolshevism,  have  remained  thoroughly  consistent 
as  Germans. 

When  I  say  that  Bolshevism  follows  naturally  from  the 
socialist  premise,  we  must  bethink  ourselves  of  the  natural 
implications  of  that  premise.  For  the  socialist,  consciously 
or  unconsciously,  has  abolished  all  national  distinctions,  and 
with  the  abolishment  of  national  distinctions,  the  socialist  has 
discarded  all  national  values.  Hence,  from  the  socialist  view- 
point, in  so  far  as  the  Great  War  is  due,  not  to  economic 


144  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

causes  but  to  racial  aspirations,  it  is  a  war  carried  on  for 
values  that  have  no  existence. 

Thus,  from  the  standpoint  of  Bolshevism,  there  are  no 
issues,  apart  from  the  economic  issue,  around  which  the  Rus- 
sian workman  or  peasant  need  rally;  the  Belgian  proletariat 
were  foolish  to  defend  Belgium  against  invasion  by  Germany 
because  they  owned  nothing  in  Belgium  and  hence  had  nothing 
to  defend;  that  it  did  not  concern  the  French  who  governed 
Alsace-Lorraine,  as  long  as  the  people  of  those  provinces  were 
economically  unaffected  either  way;  that  English  Trade 
Unionism  was  far  more  important  than  the  political  fate  of 
France  or  Great  Britain,  etc.,  etc. 

Bolshevism  is  socialism  reduced  ad  absurdum.  It  is 
devoid  of  patriotism  because  patriotism  is  not  consistent  with 
the  economic  motivity  assumed  to  be  actuating  all  relations. 
It  recognizes  no  ties  of  honor  with  the  allies  of  Russia,  because 
honor  itself  is  an  anomaly  in  the  economic  purview  of  things. 
It  sees  no  moral  distinctions  between  the  aspirations  of  the 
belligerents  because  all  the  belligerents  have  been  remiss  in 
failing  to  force  an  economic  straight-jacket  of  unvarying 
dimensions  upon  their  subjects.  It  has  no  sympathy  with  the 
nationalist  aspirations  of  subject  or  despoiled  peoples,  no 
matter  how  tragic  the  case,  because  the  only  common  human 
bond  it  recognizes  is  the  economic  bond. 

Thus,  the  Bolsheviki,  abandoning  that  national  appeal 
thru  which  even  the  poor,  ignorant  mujik  was  able  to  feel 
himself  identified  with  the  seat  of  government,  such  as  it 
was,  left  the  peasant  with  nothing  but  an  economic  hunger. 
Naturally,  the  result  is  chaos.  For  the  substitution  of  the 
economic  motive  in  place  of  nationalism  is  an  invitation  to  the 
lowest  form  of  individual  struggle.  In  the  scale  of  struggle, 
the  economic  appeal  is  an  assumption  that  the  human  being  is 
contained  between  his  hat  and  his  shoes ;  that  he  has  no  wider 
interests  and  is  invulnerable  to  any  other  form  of  sensitiveness 
or  responsibility  save  the  gratification  of  his  economic 
appetites. 

The  Russian  proletariat,  unleashed  with  the  injunction 
to  fill  their  stomachs  and  their  pockets  as  the  sacred  concomi- 
tant of  the  sacred  will  to  live,  must  pursue  the  cycle  of 
depredation  and  destruction  to  the  end.  Human  nature,  which 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  145 

must  express  the  law  of  struggle  under  all  conditions,  will  not 
be  changed  one  jot;  but  the  rich  peasant  must  be  rendered  poor 
and  the  poor,  rich;  the  great  must  be  rendered  small  and  vice 
versa;  no  stone  must  be  left  unturned.  Then,  when  the  round 
of  destruction  is  complete  unto  nausea,  and  the  rabble — or 
some  of  them — attain  something  worth  guarding,  the  uses  of 
some  of  the  things  destroyed  will  occur  to  them;  and  the 
people  will  proceed  to  re-build,  stone  by  stone,  what  was 
destroyed,  with  a  measure  of  improvement  here  and  there  such 
as  will  be  suggested  by  the  increased  sensitiveness  gained  in 
the  turmoil ;  and  national  self-respect  will  re-assert  itself 
again. 

For  national  groups  cannot  subsist  as  such  without 
national  self-respect,  any  more  than  the  individual  can  sub- 
sist without  self-respect  which  is  another  word  for  faith  in 
the  capacity  to  struggle  further.  Remove  the  basis  for 
national  self-respect,  either  thru  conquest,  surfeiture  or  cos- 
mopolitanism, and  you  may  have  left  a  few  individuals  who 
are  world-conscious,  but  the  mass  of  the  people  become  nar- 
rowly self-seeking,  lose  their  unity  of  interest  and  pride,  and 
the  current  thought  becomes,  "Every  man  for  himself!" 

In  theory,  the  cosmopolitanist,  Ajax-like,  carries  the 
whole  world  upon  his  shoulders.  In  practice,  having  no  defin- 
able mass-obligation,  he  becomes  a  bohemian  and  carries 
nothing  but  himself.  It  was  this  state  of  feeling  at  the  close 
of  the  French  Revolution,  resulting  in  general  insecurity  and 
national  purposelessness,  that  culminated  in  Napoleon;  it  is 
this  state  of  feeling  that  must  undermine  Bolshevism  as  well, 
insofar  as  the  rule  of  the  latter  will  not  be  prolonged  thru 
German  machinations. 

It  becomes  apparent,  then,  that  socialism,  despite  its 
apparent  coherence  and  its  call  to  economic  organization,  is 
an  anarchic  element  in  times  of  national  crisis;  that  at  such 
times  it  spells  disintegration  and  confusion  of  all  issues  and 
relationships,  and  is  as  great  a  peril  upon  the  horizon  of  the 
world  as  that  militarism  it  aims  to  counteract.  The  socialist 
may  or  may  not  have  a  quiverful  of  remedies  applicable  to 
our  state  of  economic  non-conformity;  but  as  long  as  he  fails 
to  grasp  the  individuality  resident  in  national  groups  and  the 
sacredness  of  that  individuality,  or  to  realize  that  national 


146  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

self-respect  must  struggle  to  express  itself  nationally,  he  is  in 
the  position  of  the  physician  who  administers  ingenious  toxins 
but  forgets  the  important  tho  homely  element  of  food,  so  that 
his  patient  must  needs  die.  This  aspect  of  socialism  has  best 
been  exemplified  by  the  Bolsheviki,  as  well  as  by  their  con- 
freres in  France,  England,  Italy,  and  elsewhere,  to  a  lesser 
degree. 

5.    War  As  a  Requisite  of  Trade. 

The  claim  that  this  or  any  other  considerable  war  was 
waged  as  a  requirement  of  trade  is  untrue.  If  war  had  to 
wait  upon  the  decision  of  industrial  or  commercial  magnates 
or  organizations  there  would  never  be  any  war.  The  require- 
ments of  trade  do  not  permit  of  the  interruptions  and  vicissi- 
tudes of  war,  and  capital  is  far  too  timid  and  too  exacting  to 
embark  upon  such  undertakings  for  sustenance  and  increase. 
Of  course,  once  the  state  of  war  is  in  being,  those  enterprises 
that  survive  the  changed  condition  of  affairs  try  to  accom- 
modate themselves  to  the  new  order  of  things  and  even  to 
make  the  most  of  them.  Military  conquest  does  not  of  itself 
insure  the  permanent  trend  of  markets.  The  conquest  of 
markets,  like  the  ascendency  of  religions  and  cultures,  is  too 
subtle  a  task  to  be  within  reach  of  the  military  arm.  Witness 
how  the  trade  of  Germany  succeeded  in  circumnavigating  the 
globe  and  reach  out  into  the  possessions  and  home  markets  of 
all  the  nations! — a  peace-achievement  which  the  War  will  do 
nothing  to  enhance ! 

It  cannot  be  gainsayed,  however,  that  there  is  an  element 
of  great  danger  in  the  non-cooperative  rivalry  of  the  nations 
as  they  strain  for  exclusive  markets.  While  it  is  true  that  the 
requirements  of  international  trade  do  not  commit  the  world 
to  resort  to  arms,  it  may  be  a  contributing  influence  psycholog- 
ically. But  it  is  not  trade  which  resorts  to  militarism,  but 
militarism  which  regards  trade,  like  everything  else,  as  the 
subject  of  prey.  Nowadays  our  military  wiseacres  look  at  the 
map  with  a  commercial  slant  and  would  convert  the  compe- 
tition of  commerce  in  terms  of  militarism.  Actually,  there  is 
no  more  excuse  for  this  than  for  a  debating  society  to  resort 
to  fisticuffs.    Debating  and  fisticuffs  are  both  degrees  of  strug- 


STRUGGLE  AS  WAR  147 

gle,  to  be  sure.  All  life  is  made  up  of  gradations  in  struggle. 
The  whole  problem  is  to  prevent  the  declension  of  higher  to 
lower  forms  of  struggle  which  is  the  difference  between 
ethical  and  unethical  observance,  between  morality  and  im- 
morality, between  industry  and  theft,  between  war  and  peace. 
The  temptation  to  convert  trade  enterprise  into  military 
aggressions  is  particularly  strong  where  the  field  of  operations 
happens  to  lie  in  the  territory  of  a  weak,  conquered  or  other- 
wise helpless  people.  As  this  situation  creates  a  field  free 
from  recognized  standards,  with  the  advantage  to  the 
strongest,  it  is  here  that  our  junkers  and  super-thugs  begin 
to  smell  powder  and  snort  fire.  This,  of  course,  is  another 
way  of  saying  that  peoples  and  territories  regarded  as  sub- 
ject of  prey  by  stronger  powers  are  a  menace  to  the  peace 
of  the  world. 

Apart  from  this,  there  exists  a  natural  but  unnecessary 
tug-o'-war  in  the  trade  relations  of  all  countries.  One  nation 
will  spur  on  the  growth  of  an  industry  that  is  being  carried  on 
better  by  its  neighbor,  and  covers  up  its  incapacity  by  a  high 
tariff.  Others,  like  Germany,  will  sell  some  of  its  products  at 
a  loss,  in  South  America,  say,  simply  to  keep  competitors  out 
of  the  field  and  retain  control  for  the  sale  of  more  profitable 
items.  Every  nation  strains  to  get  solid  ground  under  its  feet 
by  obtaining  exclusive  markets  or  special  concessions.  Why 
should  the  unsuccessful  nation  be  loaded  up  with  unsalable 
merchandise  and  its  factories  cease  to  operate?  Why  should 
it  make  too  much  profit  on  one  item  and  suffer  a  loss  on 
another?  Why  should  the  United  States  and  the  nations  of 
Europe  look  with  so  much  dread  upon  the  enterprise  of  Japan 
and  the  low-priced  labor  of  the  Far  East?  Why  should  Japan 
look  upon  the  commerce  of  Europe  and  America  as  so  much 
prey?  In  short,  why  foster  unnatural  competition,  over-pro- 
duction and  the  unnecessary  cheapening  of  products  which 
have  an  economic  value  for  the  world? 

Why,  indeed,  but  because  of  the  instability  of  economic 
values,  due  to  the  lack  of  domestic  and  international  stand- 
ardization? But,  the  value  of  commodities  can  be  gradually 
standardized,  economic  risk  and  excessive  production  elimi- 
nated and  the  direction  and  quantity  of  exports  adjusted. 
The  era  of  state-controlled  monopolies,  operating  in  the  fields 


148  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

of  transportation,  domestic  production  and  distribution,  and 
in  foreign  buying  and  selling,  would  do  away  with  the  last 
vestige  of  an  excuse  for  war,  always  provided  it  be  understood 
that  no  land  becomes  subject  to  forcible  annexation  by  alien 
powers. 

The  problems  of  world-trade  cannot  be  solved  by  armies 
and  navies.  They  can  only  be  solved  by  the  world's  best 
hearts  and  minds  acting  co-operatively,  with  a  view  to  giving 
to  every  nation  its  quid  pro  quo,  even  to  the  last  match  or 
grain  of  wheat,  in  an  absolute  adjustment  between  its  natural 
productions,  wants  and  the  requirements  of  the  rest  of  the 
world.  Values,  after  all,  are  artificial  creations.  Why  not 
adjust  values  so  that  they  will  tend  to  supply  instead  of  deny 
the  needs  of  human  beings?  The  economic  problems  of  one 
nation  are  the  economic  problems  of  all.  The  world  is  indeed 
sick.  But  when  a  human  being  becomes  ill  do  we  call  in  the 
aid  of  the  executioner?  Can  the  world  as  a  whole  do  with 
less  of  the  tender  care  and  the  solicitude  which  we  bestow 
upon  an  individual? 


CHAPTER  VII. 

STRUGGLE  AS  A  RELIGION 
1.    The  Mystery  of  Pain. 

WE  HA\^  seen  how  the  presence  of  pain  in  the  univer- 
sal composition  compels  to  struggle;  how  common 
need  compels  to  struggle;  and  how,  in  the  absence  of 
common  need,  pain  asserts  itself  in  a  new  guise  and  compels 
to  struggle;  how  morality  is  developed  from  struggle;  how 
law  compels  to  a  maintenance  of  the  common  standard  of 
struggle  attained;  how  the  arts  represent  pain  and  struggle  in 
equilibrium ;  how  the  march  of  civilization,  through  all  blood- 
lettings and  vicissitudes,  tends  to  the  survival  of  the  most 
sensitive  and  the  creation  of  higher  standards  of  struggle. 

We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  place  of  religion 
in  struggle. 

The  prophets  who,  by  concensus  of  opinion,  were  intensely 
religious,  viewed  God  as  imbued  with  loving  kindness  and,  at 
the  same  time,  as  the  Lord  of  Battles.  They  saw  no  inconsist- 
ence in  the  existence  of  both  these  attributes  in  God.  On 
the  contrary,  they  even  said,  ''Whom  the  Lord  loveth  he 
chastiseth,"  and  ''A  God  of  Battles  is  the  Lord,"  and  ''From 
the  right  hand  of  the  Lord  runs  a  law  of  fire. ' '  It  has  remained 
for  our  time  to  soften  the  conception  of  God  and  to  imagine 
him,  not  in  accordance  with  a  cosmic  conception  of  things, 
but  as  a  panderer  to  our  momentary  wishes. 

Religion  is  recognized  as  the  highest  attainment  of  human 
growth,  and  rightly  so.  It  represents  the  carrying  of  struggle 
into  domains  that  are  beyond  the  limits  of  time,  space,  and 
the  pressure  of  immediate  relationships.  It  is  therefore  an 
extension  of  the  battle-line  beyond  the  out-posts  of  local 
conflicts. 

In  the  last  analysis,  religion  flows  from  the  wish  to 
account  for  pain  upon  terms  that  are  consonant  with  imme- 
diate or  ultimate  human  welfare.  Thus,  it  will  be  seen  that 
religion,  too,  is  struggle  from  pain.  It  is  a  more  subtle,  more 
ambitious,  more  powerful  struggle  than  any  in  the  whole 
gamut  of  struggle.    It  is  the  lone  Jacob  wrestling  with  the 

149 


150  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

angel  of  eternity.  All  religions  are  attempts  to  account  for 
universal  pain. 

The  first  step  in  the  formulation  of  a  creed  is  to  attempt 
to  trace  the  cause  of  pain  which,  with  most  peoples,  is  syn- 
onymous with  evil.  Having  found  the  cause  of  pain  or  evil, 
the  second  step  is  to  study  how  to  placate  it  as  (a)  the 
Carthagenians  and  others  did,  by  offering  excruciating  sacri- 
fices and  immolations;  (b)  by  attempting  to  root  out  pain  alto- 
gether through  the  castration  of  the  appetites  or  sensibilities 
to  pain,  as  do  certain  Hindu  sects;  (c)  by  studying  how  to  live 
in  harmony  with  it  through  continual  trials  or  experiences 
with  it,  as  the  Hebrews  did.  These  three  are  the  most  inclu- 
sive methods  of  accounting  for  pain. 

The  first  step  in  tracing  the  causes  of  pain  or  evil  having 
been  taken,  and  the  second  process  of  placating  the  deity  hav- 
ing also  been  evolved,  the  third  process  follows,  which  consists 
in  a  significant,  comparatively  rigid  ceremonial,  liturgy,  and 
certain  sacred  laws  compelling  a  course  of  action  in  keeping 
with  the  particular  conception  of  the  requirements  of  the 
deity;  also,  a  priesthood  permanently  charged  with  the  task 
of  seeing  to  the  observance  of  the  ceremonies,  liturgy  and 
sacred  laws  on  the  part  of  the  people. 

The  priest-institution,  although  a  very  useful  one,  has 
often  caused  great  trouble  in  the  world  because  of  the  fact 
that  it  rapidly  became  vested,  and  its  task  unaltering  in  its 
nature  and  form,  whereas  the  people  at  large  underwent  all 
the  modifications  natural  to  growth  or  experience  in  pain. 
Thus  it  happened,  that  while  the  religious  conception  of  the 
Hebrews  at  one  time  had  undergone  such  a  development  that 
the  institution  of  sacrifices  and  burnt  offerings  was  really  no 
longer  in  harmony  with  the  times,  the  priesthood  still  clung 
to  them,  although  some  of  the  priests,  as  happens  everywhere 
under  like  conditions,  endeavored  to  invest  the  old  ceremo- 
nials with  a  new  significance  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the 
times.    This  problem  still  persists  in  all  religions. 

But  the  question  which  presents  itself  at  this  stage  of  our 
analysis  is,  since  it  is  claimed  that  all  religions  are  attempts 
to  account  for  pain,  why  is  it  that  some  religions  are  based 
upon  the  conception  of  many  divinities,  others  upon  two,  and 
others,  again,  upon  only  one?    This  question  goes  to  the  root 


STRUGGLE  AS  A  RELIGION  151 

of  the  whole  matter.  It  also  affects  our  understanding  of  what 
peoples  are  deeply  religious  and  which  are  not. 

A  religion  may  center  upon  many  divinities  or  upon  one, 
depending  upon  the  scope  and  intensity  of  the  national  expe- 
rience of  the  people  professing  the  religion  in  question.  Thus, 
a  barbarian  of  limited  national  experience  and  corresponding 
deficiency  in  intellect,  will  have  a  proportionately  superficial 
view  of  divinities.  Every  force  in  nature  will  be  apparent  as 
a  separate,  unrelated  devil  or  god.  The  fire  will  be  one  god, 
the  water  another,  the  sun  another,  the  moon  another,  etc., 
etc.  Another  barbarian,  more  sensitive  to  certain  inter- 
relations between  these  various  phenomena,  will  evolve  a 
family  or  pantheon  of  gods  or  devils  with  individually  defined 
and  coherent  functions,  as  exemplified  by  the  panthea  of  the 
Egyptians  and  the  Greeks.  In  the  process  of  time,  perhaps, 
these  beliefs  will  be  superseded  by  convictions  that  the 
authorship  of  all  phenomena  is  ascribable  to  one  of  the  gods 
only,  such  as  the  sun-god,  which  was  the  belief  that  was  gain- 
ing ground  in  Egypt  when  the  Hebrews  and  the  Hittites  had 
the  ascendency  in  that  country.  The  early  Canaanites,  who 
were  conquered  by  the  Hebrews,  seem  to  have  had  a  highly 
unified  conception  of  a  god,  despite  their  ritual  which  was 
quite  logical  even  though  harrowing  in  its  apparent  immor- 
ality from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Hebrews.  Their  conception 
of  divinity  was  still  considerably  more  unified  and  profound 
than  that  of  the  early  Greeks  with  their  more  or  less  hap- 
hazard pantheon.  It  seems  well  established  that  they  wor- 
shipped Baal  and  Ashtoreth  (or  Astarte)  as  the  male  and 
female  principle  governing  all  forms  of  life.  Judged  by  their 
religion,  they  had  a  more  intense  experience  of  life  than  the 
Greeks  and  Romans. 

In  the  early  history  of  the  barbarous  races  of  western 
Europe,  the  conception  of  god-head  was  most  diffuse.  Their 
conception  of  deity  began  to  attain  unity  only  when  they 
became  pain-conscious  in  the  larger  sense.  It  is  thus  apparent, 
that  notwithstanding  the  glitter  and  pomp  of  wars,  con- 
quests and  the  trappings  of  culture,  the  true  measure  of  the 
wealth  of  experience  absorbed  by  a  nation,  is  its  ability  to 
unify  its  conception  of  all  phenomena  and  all  relations;  and, 
indeed,  as  even  the  Greeks  and  Romans  became  older  and  more 


152  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

sensitive  to  their  experiences,  their  conception  of  the  deity- 
began  to  intensify  until  finally  they  amalgamated  with  that 
Hebrew  movement  in  the  world  which  is  called  Christianity. 

The  people  who  brought  unity  of  conception  into  the 
world  in  the  most  startling  relief  were  the  Hebrews.  This 
unity  of  conception  sprang  from  a  sublime  intuition  formed 
of  the  very  heat  and  shock  of  their  conflict  with  the  hard  facts 
of  life.  Intuitively,  through  all  the  maze  of  their  experiences, 
to  which  they  were  highly  sensitive,  they  saw  God  the  same 
in  innumerable  phases.  They  did  not  blink  at  pain.  They 
recognized  it  as  divine ;  that  pain  must  come  with  knowledge ; 
that  out  of  the  right  hand  of  the  Lord  runs  a  law  of  fire ;  that 
out  of  many  purgings  by  trials  something  better  and  holier 
may  come;  that  the  Lord  loves  a  man  acquainted  with  many 
sorrows;  that  the  punisher  and  the  punished  are  instruments 
in  the  hands  of  God;  that  God  may  be  in  the  cloud  and  the 
sun,  the  grass  and  the  trees,  the  land,  the  water,  the  thunder 
and  the  still  small  voice;  that  God  ordained  that  the  fruit  of 
evil  must  be  evil;  that  every  generation  is  responsible  to  God 
for  what  it  passes  on  to  the  next  generation;  that  a  nation 
may  not  live  half  free  and  half  slave;  that  the  acts  of  daily 
life  are  in  relation  to  all  other  acts,  and  therefore  necessarily 
holy;  that  the  laws  of  a  nation  are  the  laws  by  which  it  shall 
live  and  not  die;  that  God  is  universal  and  means  well  by  all 
that  follow  in  his  ways;  that  to  follow  the  statutes  of  God  is 
the  way  of  health  for  a  nation  as  for  an  individual;  and  that 
the  ways  of  sin  are  death  or  destruction. 

Thus  the  Hebrews  presented  to  the  world  a  conception 
that  was  all-inclusive,  unified  and  signalized  that  the  race 
stood  upon  the  apex  of  the  world's  civilization.  For  what  is 
civilization  in  a  people  but  its  degree  of  sensitiveness  to  pain? 
In  this  sense — and  it  is  the  only  proper  sense — the  Romans, 
for  example,  were  not  civilized  at  all,  in  fact  less  so  than  some 
of  the  tribes  they  subdued. 

Thus,  as  I  have  said,  all  religions  are  attempts  to  account 
for  pain;  and  the  lower  we  go  in  the  scale  of  sensitiveness,  the 
more  unorganized,  incomplete  and  casual  is  the  conception  of 
god-head.  The  greater  the  experience  of  pain  and  struggle, 
the  more  monotheistic  and  universal  this  conception  will  be. 


STRUGGLE  AS  A  RELIGION  153 

2.  The  Religion  of  Suicide. 

The  Hindus  say, ' '  In  the  beginning  there  was  desire. ' '  This 
is  not  a  true  saying,  because  before  there  can  be  desire  there 
must  be  a  condition  begetting  desire.  That  condition  is  Pain. 
Pain  begets  not  only  desire  but  struggle.  In  a  certain  sense 
Struggle  is  Pain  become  conscious  of  itself.  Desire  and 
Struggle  may  or  may  not  be,  but  pain  always  is  in  varying 
degrees;  and  it  was  in  the  beginning. 

Now  the  Hindus  call  desire  evil  and  believe  that  desire 
can  and  should  be  eliminated  because  all  evils  flow  from  it. 
The  fact  is,  however,  that  desire  flows  from  pain,  and  unless 
we  root  out  pain,  which  is  an  impossibility,  desires  are  inevi- 
table. Desires  are,  of  course,  subject  to  discipline  but  their 
total  suppression,  as  attempted  by  the  Hindu  cult,  is  a  subtle 
but  futile  attempt  at  suicide  in  life.  It  is  an  avoidance  of  life 
which  springs  from  a  too  mellifluous  conception  of  the  aim 
of  the  universe — nirvana  or  unfeeling,  i.  e.,  no  pain  or  hap- 
piness. 

When  the  Hindu  seers  said,  '*In  the  beginning  there  was 
desire,"  they  came  very  close  to  an  understanding  of  the  sub- 
ject. For,  after  all,  desire  is  the  subjective  name  of  pain. 
In  a  sense,  pain  is  desire.  But  instead  of  perceiving  that  pain 
is  of  the  stuff  of  life  and  choosing  to  express  this  desire  in 
struggle,  they  elected  to  root  desire  out  of  the  scheme  of 
things.  They  thus  saw  pain  in  wrong  relation  to  the  other 
realities  of  life  and  their  fumbling  quest  to  find  themselves 
in  the  maze  of  their  own  creation  was  bound  to  end  in  mystic 
vapours. 

In  brief,  Pain  is  not  something  accidental  or  adventitious, 
but  of  the  very  stuff  of  life.  There  is  no  release  from  it  save 
through  expression  in  ever-widening  areas  of  struggle. 
Religion,  far  from  being  a  medium  of  evasion  of  struggle,  is 
an  extension  of  it  through  and  beyond  the  borders  of  life. 

3.  Peace  in  Struggle. 

It  may  perhaps  be  imagined  that  it  follows  from  the 
acceptance  of  pain  and  struggle  as  the  basis  of  life  that  peace 
must  be  considered  forever  banished  from  our  conception  of 
things.    This  by  no  means  follows,  however. 


154  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

We  have  seen  that  pleasure  is  nothing  but  the  fulfillment 
of  some  pain  in  some  struggle ;  that  beauty,  whether  in  art  or 
in  nature,  is  an  impression  made  upon  us  by  the  equipoise  or 
proportion  of  pain-suggestions  and  their  elements  of  fulfill- 
ment. It  is  apparent  then  that  neither  pleasure  nor  beauty  are 
foreign  to  nor  irreconcilable  with  pain  and  struggle  but,  that 
on  the  contrary,  they  flow  from  the  nature  of  pain  and  struggle 
and  cannot  be  conceived  or  postulated  except  as  we  know  pain 
and  struggle.  Now  the  nature  of  peace  in  relation  to  Pain- 
Struggle  is  not  materially  different.  Peace  is  a  bigger,  more 
inclusive  word  than  pleasure  and  means  fulfillment.  He  alone 
knows  peace  who  can  and  does  turn  longing  into  doing.  The 
word  peace  is  a  more  inclusive  word  than  pleasure  because  it 
does  not  refer  to  isolated  instances  of  fulfillment  but  to  the 
whole  gamut  of  human  desires.  On  the  other  hand,  peace  is 
the  complement  of  beauty  in  that  it  implies  an  equipoise  of 
pain  and  struggle  or  fulfillment  in  human  relations,  just  as 
beauty  implies  the  same  thing  in  art  or  nature. 

Obviously,  then,  the  yearning  for  peace,  instead  of  being 
inconsistent  with  the  acceptance  of  Pain-Struggle  as  the  law 
of  life,  flows  legitimately  from  it  and  it  is  not  surprising  that 
the  most  suffering  of  peoples  should  have  made  peace  its  mis- 
sion. The  longing  for  peace  is  a  quest  for  the  adjustment  of 
life  to  the  law  of  struggle.  It  is  an  adjustment  which  must 
be  a  continual  adjustment.    One  must  ''walk  with  God." 

The  Hindus,  it  is  true,  believe  that  peace  can  and  should 
be  obtained  permanently  once  and  for  all  time.  But  here  is 
where  Pain-Struggle  and  the  peace-idea  part  company.  We 
cannot  know  peace  unless  we  know  pain.  There  is  no  short 
cut  to  peace.  Peace  can  only  be  had  through  struggle  and 
through  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  struggle. 

4.    Death  and  Immortality. 

In  the  terminology  of  humanity,  death  is  a  result  follow- 
ing upon  the  failure  or  inability  to  translate  pain  into  strug- 
gle in  terms  of  the  flesh. 

Humanity  asks,  Is  death  the  last  of  the  individual! 

If  the  word  ''individual"  implies  as  we  were  wont  to  see 
the  one  who  is  dead,  the  answer  is,  as  far  as  we  are  capable 


STRUGGLE  AS  A  RELIGION  155 

of  knowing,  Yes,  that  is  the  last  of  the  individual;  he  is  now 
but  a  memory. 

Humanity  asks  again,  however,  To  what  end,  then,  did  he 
strive f  Why  did  he  live  at  all!  Why  struggle  to  live  if  we 
do  not  live  but  die? 

But  whence  did  the  world  get  the  belief  that  we  strug- 
gle in  order  to  live?  There  is  no  true  foundation  for  this 
belief.  The  contrary  is  true.  We  live  in  order  to  struggle. 
It  may  indeed  happen  and  does  happen  that  the  bare  keeping 
of  body  and  soul  together  taxes  almost  all  our  energies,  just 
as,  when  one  stubs  his  toe,  his  entire  consciousness  is  centered 
upon  the  injured  member  or  when  there  is  no  oxygen  in  a 
room,  our  whole  aim  centers  on  supplying  the  lack.  Yet  our 
aim  in  life  is  not  to  keep  the  toe  sound  nor  our  body  sound.  It 
is  doubtful  indeed  if  there  ever  was  a  human  being  who  made 
it  his  life-aim  to  preserve  his  life. 

Humanity  argues,  however,  Well,  have  it  as  you  say. 
The  departed  one  did  not  struggle  in  order  to  live,  but,  as  you 
say,  lived  in  order  to  struggle.  But  now  that  he  is  dead,  is 
this  not  the  end  of  his  struggle  as  well  as  of  his  life  ? 

The  answer  is  that  his  struggle  is  not  necessarily  cut  off 
any  more  than  any  other  form  of  energy  once  set  in  motion,  is 
cut  olf .  Struggle  is  not  limited  by  death.  It  may  reverberate 
through  the  ages,  long  after  **life"  has  ceased;  for  all  we 
know  to  the  contrary,  eternally  through  the  avenues  of  time, 
sometimes  visibly,  sometimes  invisibly.  Consider  the  life  of 
any  great  man,  trace  his  struggles  beyond  the  borders  of  his 
**life"  into  the  life  of  succeeding  generations.  (Or  consider 
the  life  of  a  great  people,  totally  annihilated  every  few  gen- 
erations or  so,  nevertheless  transmitting  its  struggle  to  suc- 
ceeding generations.)  We  must  consider  this  phenomenon, 
not  as  a  poet's  vagary,  but  as  a  fact  with  which  we  must 
reckon  if  we  wish  to  realize  something  of  our  place  in  the 
scheme  of  things.  Life  between  the  borders  of  birth  and 
death  is  but  a  minute  in  struggle. 

What  determines  the  extent  of  the  reverberations  in  strug- 
gle after  the  period  of  life!  Is  there  an  equality  of  immor- 
tality in  struggle?  It  would  seem  that  the  immortality  given 
to  each  is  in  proportion  to  the  energy  of  sensitiveness  or  pain 
and  struggle  which  the  individual  experienced  in  his  life.  The 


156  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

prematurely  demised  infant  has  the  modicum  of  discernible 
immortality  that  is  proportionate  to  its  short  span  of  sensi- 
tiveness and  struggle,  and  the  adult  who  has  passed  beyond 
has  a  corresponding  proportion  of  discernible  immortality. 
I  say  discernible  to  distinguish  between  the  immortality  that 
is  perceptible  to  immediate  survivors  and  the  irmnortality 
which  must  be  taken  for  granted  as  a  fact  in  nature  even  tho 
we  cannot  follow  it  with  our  limited  vision,  just  as  we  can- 
not follow  the  influences  of  other  progressions  of  various 
forms  of  energy  whose  motion  is,  nevertheless,  not  cut  off. 

I  do  not  pretend  that  this  is  the  kind  of  immortality  which 
the  heart  of  man  craves.  Granted.  Put  me  down  as  one  of 
those  who  finds  it  very,  very  hard  to  find  consolation  in 
such  immortality  on  the  part  of  departed  ones  dear  to  me. 
But  this  does  not  prove  that  this  is  not  immortality.  Our 
natures  are  simply  too  finite  to  appreciate  it  as  we  should. 
Big  distances  in  time  and  space  are  not  easily  surmountable 
by  us  at  present.  Even  the  most  tender-hearted  are  often 
unaffected  by  tragedies  occurring  in  neighboring  villages  or 
even  streets.  Infinity  we  do  not  grasp  at  all.  It  is  therefore 
exceedingly  difficult  to  follow  the  immortal  flights  of  the 
earth-born  when  we  are  deprived  of  the  intimate  lineaments 
which  characterized  them.  Nevertheless  their  true  life,  which 
was  in  struggle,  was  not  arrested  but  continues.  If  they  did 
not  live  long  enough  or  intensively  enough,  to  generate  any 
great  struggle  capable  of  surviving  them,  neither  could  they 
have  suffered  out  of  proportion.  Either  way  we  look  at  the 
matter,  the  basic  justice  inherent  in  the  law  of  struggle  is 
unescapable. 

If,  however,  we  are  committed  to  the  principle  that  the 
"dead"  struggled  in  order  to  live,  the  conclusion  cannot  well 
be  avoided  that  their  life  was  a  delusion,  a  tragic  effort  capped 
by  failure  and  emptiness.  Viewed  from  the  opposite  stand- 
point, however,  that  the  *'dead"  lived  in  order  to  struggle, 
their  life  becomes  full  of  meaning  nobly  justified  in  itself — 
they  certainly  struggled — and  replete  with  significance  for 
the  future;  and  there  is  a  future  for  the  dead,  because  strug- 
gle is  not  interrupted  by  death. 

The  most  common  recognition  of  immortality  through 
struggle  is  exemplified  in  the  sacrifices  which  men  shower 


STRUGGLE  AS  A  RELIGION  157 

upon  the  altar  of  struggle  in  war-time.  Immortalization  thru 
heroism  entailing  death  is  then  more  easily  sensed  because 
the  whole  nation  stands  revealed  as  flowing  progressively  in 
the  same  direction;  and  a  nation  cannot  commonly  be  extin- 
guished even  though  it  is  feared  that  the  individual  might  be. 
The  individual  joins  his  struggle  to  that  of  the  nation  and 
trusts  that  this  union  of  struggle  will  survive  even  if  he  does 
not.  At  such  a  time,  faith  in  struggle  attains  almost  to  the 
height  of  a  conscious  creed. 

Most  difficult,  however,  is  to  maintain  faith  in  the  immor- 
tality of  individual  struggle,  in  times  of  so-called  peace, 
when  the  world  is  unorganized  and  the  straggler  is  alone  in 
his  endeavor,  and  the  fire  of  his  torch  sinks  and  sputters  in 
the  dark  alleys  of  the  immense  world,  and  every  stray  wind 
threatens  to  blow  out  the  feeble  light  and  leave  him  in  the 
darkness  unregarded. 

After  all  is  said,  I  shall  perhaps  be  told.  What  you  say 
about  the  immortality  of  struggle  is  not  very  clear.  Do  you 
or  do  you  not  believe  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul?  I 
should  have  to  admit  that,  far  from  knowing  anything  about 
the  immortalitv  of  the  soul,  I  do  not  even  know  what  the  soul 
is.  As  far  as  I  am  aware,  there  is  no  soul.  There  is  less  strug- 
gle—corresponding to  matter — and  there  is  greater  struggle 
— corresponding  to  what  is  called  spirit.  I  believe  that,  when 
one  dies,  that  part  of  the  individual  which  is  matter  or  less 
struggle  becomes  associated  with  kindred  matter  or  struggle, 
in  the  cosmic  fitness  of  things ;  and  that  that  part  of  the  indi- 
vidual which  is  spirit  or  greater  struggle  pursues  the  avenues 
of  spirit  or  greater  struggle ;  and  that  if  we  could  distend  our 
perceptions  to  embrace  this  kind  of  after-life  in  the  individual, 
we  would  not  and  could  not  seek  anything  else  in  the  realm 
of  immortality. 

I  hear  the  question  asked,  But  what  becomes  of  the  indi- 
vidual?   Or  is  there  no  immortality  of  the  individual? 

After  all,  what  is  the  individual?  In  a  broad  sense,  indi- 
viduality is  simply  another  word  for  limitation.  Here  and 
there  the  unit  of  sensitiveness  which  we  call  self  shows  cer- 
tain peculiarities,  whimsies,  inequalities  which  mark  the  bor- 
der-line between  the  finite  and  the  infinite.  Thus,  the  individ- 
uality of  a  child  keeps   changing  and  enlarging  in  many 


158  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

respects  so  that  for  the  most  part  the  adult  shows  an  entirely 
different  individuality  than  the  infant.    We  do  not  recognize 
it  as  a  different  individuality  because  we  can  trace  the  devel- 
opment and  recognize  some  fixed  traits  which  have  not  under- 
gone much  of  a  distension.     Nevertheless,  the  individuality 
has  changed.    Now  if  we  can  imagine  this  change  or  disten- 
sion to  go  on  indefinitely,  would  not  the  original  ear-marks 
of  the  early  individual  entity  disappear  altogether?     The 
things  that  move  an  individual  once  may  move  him  no  more. 
On  the  other  hand,  his  sympathies,  for  example,  may  em.brace 
a  much  wider  area  and  may  extend  indefinitely  to  include 
many  cities,  countries,  climates,  the  world,  then,  include  the 
world  of  the  infinite  future,  so  that  the  present  would  seem 
of  small  moment.    This  complete  extension  of  the  individual 
with  infinite  realities  would  create  the  very  condition  we  so 
dread  in  death — the  passing  of  the  individual  into  the  form  of 
infinite  struggle,  or  as  it  could  best  be  put,  extension  in  God. 
This  extension  I  would  by  no  means  call  nirvana  because 
the  latter  is  meant  to  apply  to  a  consummation  of  the  state  of 
negation  or  atrophy  of  the  fundamental  appetities.    Extension 
in  God  comes,  however,  from  a  fullness  of  experience  in  the 
fundamental  appetities  and  their  extension  into  other  domains 
than  what  we  call  the  flesh. 

5.    Ideas  of  God. 

I  think  of  God  as  in  pain  and  eternally  fulfilling  himself 
in  struggle.  (Man  is  made  in  his  image  and  it  is  this  image  in 
which  he  is  made.)  This  is  what  I  understand  by  perfection 
— pain  reacting  in  struggle.  And  it  is  in  this  wise  that  I 
understand  God  to  be  perfect. 

I  do  not  think  of  perfection  as  being  satisfaction.  It  is 
the  wish  for  satisfaction  that  partakes  of  perfection.  Perma- 
nent satisfaction  is  abhorrent  to  the  whole  idea  of  Pain-and- 
Struggle. 

A  dissatisfied,  punishing,  vengeful  or  suffering  God  is 
therefore  perfectly  logical  and  clear  to  me.  What  other  way 
of  the  universe  is  there  or  can  there  be  ?  For  permanent  satis- 
faction means  death. 

If  we  understand  by  love  a  state  of  yearning,  then  God  is 
also  love. 


STRUGGLE  AS  A  RELIGION  159 

They  have  a  true  glimpse  of  God  that  perceive  him  in 
the  state  of  suffering,  but  not  when  they  imagine  his  yearning 
to  be  temporary  and  vicarial  only. 

The  pain  of  God  and  his  re-actions  in  struggle,  are 
expressed  in  varying  degrees  in  the  clod,  the  tree,  the  plant, 
fire,  water,  the  electric  current,  the  beast  and  man,  our  specula- 
tions and  yearnings,  eternally  and  universally. 

6.    Who  Is  Sensitive? 

Many  a  man  has  gone  through  battles,  storms,  sufferings 
and  deaths,  travelled  through  many  lands,  mingled  with  many 
peoples,  met  the  world 's  elect,  met  with  adventures  that  should 
have  been  unforgetably  beautiful  or  harrowing,  and  yet 
emerged  from  all  this  practically  as  callous,  unimpressed  and 
unimpressive  as  when  he  began. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  slatternly  little  woman  dwelling  all 
her  life  in  a  little  village  or  in  an  obscure  corner  of  a  city  and 
seldom  straying  far  from  the  corner  grocery,  may  have  more 
of  the  world's  great  vistas  locked  in  her  bosom,  the  knowl- 
edge of  pain  and  sensitiveness  to  beautiful  relations  and  noble 
characters,  may  have  actually  seen  and  experienced  more  than 
the  far-travelled  adventurer  ever  dreamt. 

I  have  read  the  essays  of  some  writers  purporting  to 
deal  only  with  the  life  of  turnips  and  potatoes,  but  as  I  read, 
I  could  see  that  although  the  author  only  affected  to  deal  with 
vegetables — with  turnips  and  potatoes,  the  subject  was  replete 
with  the  profound  problems  of  life,  death,  struggle  and  fate. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  have  seen  melodramas  and  read  out- 
pourings purporting  to  be  about  life,  death,  pain,  struggle 
and  fate,  and  nevertheless,  amid  all  these  mouthings,  could 
only  discern  turnips  and  potatoes. 

There  is  an  Empire  which  has  won  a  preponderating  posi- 
tion among  the  nations  of  the  world  by  virtue  of  the  magnitude 
of  its  industrial  achievement,  its  zeal  and  fidelity  to  the  study 
of  the  phenomena  of  science  and  its  commercial  enterprise, 
but  is  so  unsensitive  at  heart  that  its  people  have  not  yet 
been  moved  to  attain  self-government,  that  despite  its  employ- 
ment of  the  most  comprehensive  spy-system  in  the  world,  it 
cannot  surmise  the  most  patent  characteristics  of  its  neigh- 


160  THE  LAW  OF  STRUGGLE 

bors  to  its  undoing,  and  so  misreads  the  psychology  of  the 
world 's  creatures  that  every  one  of  its  ruthless  steps  forward, 
creates  seas  of  division  between  it  and  the  goal  of  its  desires. 
Who  is  sensitive? 

7.    Faith. 

The  evidences  of  the  universality  of  struggle  as  a  cosmic 
principle  are  simply  innumerable.  But  among  the  most  strik- 
ing of  these  evidences  is  faith.  As  long  as  we  were  committed 
to  the  idea  that  the  so-called  ''will  to  live"  was  the  govern- 
ing principle  in  the  world,  faith  was  an  incomprehensible,  if 
not  unbelievable,  factor,  since,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  do  not 
live.  Once  we  grasp  the  idea,  however,  that  we  live  in  order 
to  struggle  and  that  struggle  is  not  cut  off  but  pushes  on 
indefinitely  beyond  the  boundaries  of  our  life,  faith  not  only 
becomes  comprehensible  but  indispensable  in  the  scheme  of 
things.  For  faith  is  the  connecting  link  or  nexus  between 
the  present  and  the  future,  between  our  little  life  across  the 
mysterious  border  of  death  into  the  stretches  of  infinity  again. 
Faith  carries  the  hope  of  the  world  onward  upon  the  wings  of 
struggle,  even  in  the  teeth  of  death  itself,  before  the  visible 
evidences  of  destruction  and  that  stench  of  decay  which  lies 
in  wait  for  us.  Faith  is  the  voice  of  struggle  crying  to  the 
universal  Job,  **Tho  thou  be  destroyed,  believe  in  me."  In 
short,  faith  is  the  form  in  which  struggle  manifests  its  eternal 
quality  to  us  amid  the  turmoil  in  which  the  world  appears  to 
our  poor,  undeveloped,  confused  minds. 

Faith  is  of  two  kinds,  natural  or  unconscious  faitli,  and 
conscious  faith.  Natural  or  unconscious  faith  partakes  of 
our  animal  or  material  existence.  Unconscious  faith,  how- 
ever, is  not  fully  adequate  to  the  needs  of  man  because  man 
has  a  conscious  life,  too.  Hence  there  is  also  conscious  faith. 
Man  has  always  striven,  however  ineffectually,  to  make  his 
faith  conscious  so  that  it  might  square  with  his  intellectual 
perceptions.  Inasmuch  as  man  has  been  taught  to  believe  that 
pain  and  struggle  are  evil  and  has  nevertheless  been  compelled 
to  undergo  both,  conscious  faith  remains  well  nigh  unattain- 
able. It  still  remains  the  task  of  religion  to  make  faith 
conscious. 


STRUGGLE  AS  A  RELIGION  161 

8.    Prayer. 

There  are  many  who  pray  before  and  after  meals,  as  a 
matter  of  habit.  But  this  is  not  real  prayer.  Only  those  can 
pray  for  the  common  blessings  that  are  with  us  that  have 
the  humility  and  farsightedness  to  realize  how  insecure  are 
all  enjoyments  and  how  carefully  we  must  move  from  one 
day's  accomplishment  to  the  other. 

To  be  sure,  there  are  also  prayers  of  thanksgiving.  But 
even  these,  in  so  far  as  they  are  prayer  and  not  pride,  derive 
their  real  significance  and  poignancy  from  the  fact  that  we 
have  been  vouchsafed  something  in  the  midst  of  a  danger 
that  is  always  with  us. 

Prayer  is  an  emanation  of  human  struggle.  It  comes  to 
us  in  its  purest  form  in  the  shadow  of  great  issues  fraught 
with  danger  or  achievement.  Hence,  the  prayers  of  battle,  no 
matter  from  whom  they  proceed,  are  always  sincere.  Hence, 
also,  the  difficulty  of  making  prayer  a  mere  habit  of  life.  For 
prayer  is  the  act  of  summoning  all  the  powers  of  which  we 
are  cognizant  to  keep  us  sensitive  and  in  condition  to  ward 
off  callousness,  error  and  defeat. 


The  Book  of  Pain-Struggle 

By 
HYMAN   SEGAL 

The  Story  of  Pain — and — Struggle  in  the 
Language  of  Prophecy 


"A  very  remarkable  utterance  of  one  of  our  con- 
temporaries *  *  *  When  one  speaks  such  a  deep, 
clear,  true  word  of  life,  it  would  be  treason  to  the 
best  interests  of  humanity  and  to  the  truth  of  our 
day  to  pass  it  by  without  distinct  attention." — Dr. 
Merle  St.  Croix  Wright. 

"A  new  prophet-cry." — Edivin  Markham. 

"The  poetic  presentation  of  the  thought  I  have 
enjoyed;  and  it  is  specially  interesting  to  me  to  find 
the  Hebrew  parallelism,  and  the  whole  spirit  of 
the  Hebrew  rhapsody,  brought  into  harmony  with 
modern  forms  of  poetry,  which  makes  a  leading  feature 
of  the  book."— Pro/.  Richard  G.  Moulton. 

Cloth,  $1.00  postpaid 

MASSADA   PUBLISHING  CO. 

PUBLISHERS  NEW  YORK 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Form  L9-Series  444 


UC  SOUTHERM  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA      000  183  845    7 


DU 


!ii  isi 


; .  " 

!l 

;  ;,;iiiT 

|i 

1 

I  * 

1    K 

tf.l 

I'll  i 

i 

'  1  ■ '  1    '1 

i  iii 
j  1^' 

1 : 

1 

i 

! 

i 

11 


w 


';i  i! 


;i!ir 


:i! 


'■■V.  ' 


■1                  ! 

t           i    t 

1 

*               1 

^!i  iir 


'i!    P 


M 


1  ! 


